User talk:Auntof6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Auntof6.

recent word change[change source]

Auntof6: For what reason was the wording changed? The word around was changed to in in the Dollhouse article. (Around the United Kingdom was changed to In the United Kingdom) Angela Maureen (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tropical Storm Angela: It's clearer. Around can mean different things. An example of one meaning is putting a fence around a yard: the fence isn't inside the yard at any point, but is along or outside the perimeter. Another way of using around (the way I assume you meant it) is to mean at different places inside of an area. An example of that meaning is "Starbucks has many stores around the country." Those stores are inside the boundary of the country, not along or outside the perimeter. When writing simple English, you have to think about which words have multiple meanings, or are used in different ways.
Now I have a question for you about this article. The enwiki article you based it on uses in for all the countries it mentions, not around. Why did you change one of those to around? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what word to use. Sometimes words aren't always clearly defined. In or around, I used around because I can't always tell which word is right. Angela Maureen (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tropical Storm Angela: Yes, prepositions can be tricky. They're one of the hardest things for my ESL students, and there are entire books just about prepositions. When in doubt, it's probably a good idea to use the same one as the enwiki article. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverted to revision 6564058 by Ma'az: decline qd: there's enough info for a stub. Article Dhoti - Talk page started[change source]

Hi, I think this article should be deleted, therefore I marked it with a quick deletion notice. This was reverted from Auntof6 (Reverted to revision 6564058 by Ma'az: decline qd: there's enough info for a stub.). From my understanding the "Wait" notice had to be used. Even if its enough for a stub the used english is very poor and therefore it should be deleted. Also the notices at the beginning of the article are more data than the 2 lines description of Dhoti. Thanks --Pablo789aq

@Pablo789aq: Admins can decide not to delete an article even if the wait template has not been used. This often happens if the QD option given is not valid for some reason. In this case, the option specified was "little or no meaning". However, it had enough meaning for a stub article, and it explained what the item is. I agree that the English in the article is not the best, but poor English is not one of the allowed QD options.
I just cleaned the article up a little and removed a couple of the maintenance templates at the top. If you think the article should be deleted, then you need to either find an allowed QD option that applies or use the RFD process instead. Leaving a message on a talk page or a user talk page will not get the article deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Taliban Hendrix MS13[change source]

Can you explain in detail why you deleted this page? I only get a message that says, "Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.197.190 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The article was an unsimplified copy of text from English Wikipedia. Articles here must be in simple language, and that one was not in simple language. Articles can be copied from English Wikipedia, but the language must be simplified and attribution must be given. If the language is copied without being simplified, it can be deleted through the quick deletion process. To learn about how to simplify English, see Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia.
By the way, when you write something on a talk page, please sign it by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Franklin's lost expedition[change source]

I made this page and you deleted it, I now have the correct references and the correct coverage to make this article, can I go ahead? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't understand why it was deleted in the first place. I've restored it, and you can add to it from there. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank You. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft[change source]

That template is deprecated because of the templates "Infobox aircraft begin", "Infobox aircraft type" &c. Besides, look at the En Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_aircraft

Soumya-8974 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: That makes the template deprecated on enwiki, but not here. The QD option you specified can't be used if the template is in use. See my message on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Question[change source]

Hey. I have a question. Isn't it against Wikipedia's rules that users who show they have a specific right (which they don't have) on their user page? - I'm talking about this edit here. --SimmeD (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@SimmeD: I don't think there's a specific rule about that. That kind of things can get out of date, and it isn't the official way of telling what rights someone has. If you want to see what rights someone actually has, you can either click the verify link in the user box or go to Special:UserRights and put in their user name.
I wouldn't worry too much about what people have on their user pages, but if you really think something on another user's page needs to be changed, you could ask the user or an admin to take care of it: editing someone else's user page is actually a bigger offense than having inaccurate user boxes. Pinging @Djsasso because he maintains the list of active and inactive admins, in case he wants to consider updating user boxes when admins lose their rights, but I don't really see this as a big deal. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Understood. That was more because many of the Scandinavian Wikis have the rule. I also believe that English Wikipedia prohibits people from displaying rights on their userpage that they do not have. The reason why users should not display wrong rights on its user page on wikis is because new users may be confused. But all wikis have their own rules, and it doesn't sound like this rule is active here :-) - You learn something new every day. Thanks for reply --SimmeD (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah its usually not that big a deal in cases like this one where he just lost his rights through inactivity so hasn't really been around to fix his userpage. If it was someone trying to trick people into thinking they were an admin or something, that would be a bigger deal. But yeah if I think about it I will start removing userboxes when people have their flags removed. -DJSasso (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)