Jump to content

User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prophylaxis

Mac and I have responded to your suggestion here. Maybe you could give us a rough idea about what you wanted to see happen on that page? Osiris (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future movie releases

I noticed your RfD nomination of The Interview for the reason it's a future release date. I remember I patrolled one yesterday with a release date of October 2014, Serena. Given the notability of the stars in the film and that it's based on a best-selling novel by a known author I didn't see a problem at the time. But you may want to review it to see if it concerns you for the same reason. I checked and the movie Serena is already made and just has a delayed release date for some reason. Rus793 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The guideline on future, incomplete, and undistributed films includes the following:
Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles... Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
I interpret this as follows:
  • Shooting not begun: not notable
  • Shooting begun, not released yet: notable only if something is notable about the production itself (like maybe a major accident occurred as happened with the Twilight Zone movie)
  • Shooting begun, released: notable if it meets notability guidelines
So, to me, the movies in question are not notable. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. According to the guidelines they’re not notable. I’ll do a QD request for the one in question. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to do an RFD, because the QD option for notability doesn't apply to movies. I declined your QD, but I would support an RFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an option to offer the initial editor the option of just removing it to her sandbox until the movie does find a buyer? Otherwise I'll do an RfD. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly ask her if she would do that. Some might have an issue with something staying in userspace indefinitely. If it is moved, a redirect should not be left behind, unlike most moves. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for simplifying, I'll try to take it into account for next article. Tell me please, how can I use the same reference for referencing two different sentences? Ie: Ormoc is a city"[1], and then in another part of text: The city has 190000 inhabitants"[2].Tdfdc (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could use "named references". At the first place, put something like this:
<ref name="Ref name 1">{{cite web...}}</ref>
That establishes the reference and gives it a name (Ref name 1). I used "cite web" as an example of the reference text, but it can be anything you'd have in any reference. At the other place(s), put something like this, where the name matches the name you used before:
<ref name="Ref name 1"/>
You don't need the </ref> to close the reference -- the slash after the second quotation mark and before the closing bracket takes care of that.
I hope that helps. Let me know if you want more info about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me please, how can I use {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}?Tdfdc (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move to userspace

Sorry about that! Much appreciated! ELTted (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I meant to leave you a note saying I had done it, but I got distracted by other things. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ormoc

I have changed the sentence about population that you have corrected. Please feel free to change it back, as I'm not sure which wording is better.Tdfdc (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Pending's talk page.
Message added 21:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 21:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox

I wanted to thank you for E-mailing it to me. That was very helpful and it has helped me to keep up with things.

But unfortunately I feel that a few things are missing and I still hope you will consider undeleting my sandbox. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not. Please don't ask again. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened footnotes

Hi! Are you sure about this move? It looks like one big self-reference to me, except for maybe the first sentence... I think it's a badly translated version of en:Help:Shortened footnotes with examples that don't work here. I could remove all the self-referential content but there probably wouldn't be much left to bother with. Osiris (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't look like a help page to me, so I moved it. There was a similar one (something about parens, I think) that I didn't move because I had second thoughts. It looked like these were created to satisfy red links in a template that I'm not sure we need anyway. I think the creator was looking at special pages for something to do, saw Special:WantedTemplates, saw the template there, and decided to create it. If you think it should be moved back, I'm open to that. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I moved it. I also removed all of the broken examples, and revamped it to be a bit more helpful. It's still not particularly useful, though... Osiris (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic mass

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Talk:Atomic mass. --Thrasymedes (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made another suggestion. Maybe you will like this one. --Thrasymedes (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Aunt,

Please delete my userpage and all subpages in my userspace. I am now User:Sportsguy17 (and have been) so there is no need for my additional subpages. WorldTraveller101 (talkchanges) 22:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, but are you sure you don't want some of those pages moved to your new user name instead of deleting them? There are a few dozen subpages under your user page and about a dozen under the talk page. I'd recommend at least keeping or moving the talk page and its archives. In any case, I'd feel more comfortable if you either give me a specific list to delete or tag them for quick deletion, just to be sure you haven't overlooked any that you might want to keep. How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I re-reviewed as suggeste. That said, majority of the pages aren't useful anymore, the rest not needed. Thanks for the willingness to help . Sportsguy17 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name sorting

Hi Auntofsix, fancy trying to sort them under the real name, it take all the challenge out of finding people! I guess this is what happens when you try editing at 6.00am. Thanks for noticing that one!--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no problem! I'm sure it was the same kind of copy/paste oversight that I've done myself. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Mr Wiki Pro's talk page.
Message added 16:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

This discussion has been moved to User talk:Tdfdc/Sandbox because that is the proper place to discuss improvements to the draft. If you want further input from me, ask it at that page and I will reply there. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wanted your personal comment, because I wouldn't like to post the article and to see it deleted by yourself, especially as you have helped to edit it in the past (as well as my other articles). But nonetheless, I welcome your move to move the comments to the article's talk page, and I'll reply there.Tdfdc (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I don't know whether you have Angela's talk page watchlisted, but I'm worried about this. Perhaps a QD tag, userfication or a talk-page note might be a better encouragement for long-term/committed editors? I have tagged one or two of September's articles before and always found her to be fairly quick to respond. Osiris (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do watch her talk page. Thanks for this note: it helps to be reminded that I could be kinder. I see that the article in question has been moved to her userspace for more work, so hopefully it will improve. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

62.254.173.205 (your block)

Hi Auntof6, he only have an improper notice by bot and start with L3 warning. Why did you block, when he did the kind of vandalism that would have make me start with L3 warning? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the bot notice is improper? In any case, that was almost a year ago. I blocked because it's an IP whose recent edits are all vandalism. There was at least one other edit that was vandalism that you don't see because the article was deleted. By the way, when you do warn, start with L1, not L3. We discussed this on your talk page in the section "Please use proper warning levels". Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...those I start with L3 are all vandalism, and not even a single edit is a test. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to argue here, but just want to reach an agreement. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on experience, most admins here stick to "start with L2" as a general rule, although every admin may have differing opinion (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that most admins start with L2, but I've seen you start with L3 or L4, and that's not appropriate. The warning levels are not chosen based on how bad the problem is, they're chosen based on how many previous warnings have been given recently. (Note that I said "recently": if it's an IP and any significant amount of time has passed, we can't assume it's the same person and the levels should start over again.) The wording of the different level messages was carefully chosen to be a progression, and the progression should be followed.
In any case it doesn't matter what the specific issue is, whether it's vandalism or something else: use the lower-level warnings first. If vandalism warnings were all supposed to start with L3, we wouldn't have the L1 and L2 messages for them. When people wander onto this site, there nothing they have to read or agree to that says they can't do whatever they please here. Therefore we can't (or at least don't) assume they know to behave. You'd think common sense would tell people not to vandalize, but it apparently doesn't. In a way, this is part of assuming good faith. It's hard to assume good faith when someone does something destructive, but they might just be playing around without realizing that this site isn't for playing like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Always Trying to Help Me

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them! Thanks for Always trying to help me become a better editor. I appreciate it.

Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 18:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal

Can you look at the VIP I have posted, IP vandal 76.247.131.215 continues to change dates on several articles, and has continued for almost an hour, that I am keeping up on reverting. Also user was recently blocked, and has returned. Enfcer (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it will give my revert finger a break, now. Enfcer (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Are you going to take care of all his/her bad edits, or do you need help? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have reverted them all. I will double check his change log to confirm. Enfcer (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked his change log, and it appears that I have gotten them all. Thanks again. Enfcer (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:new articles

Hello, Auntof6! Hey many thanks for your important advice! can you tell me please If I follow the correct instructions? thanks.----Je7roi (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the information needed, so that's good. You only need to give it once for each article, though, and you've given it twice. We have a couple of standard templates that are usually used for this: {{based on}} and {{enwp based}}. It would be nice if you used one of those, but the important thing is to give a link to the specific version, and you did that. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds fantastic, thanks to you too and have a great day, good bye.----Je7roi (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

78.26 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can Teletubbies be semi-protected? There's been a lot of persistent IP vandalism in the past couple of weeks. Thesixthstaff (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in mathematics

Hiya - Is it possible to add some categories in mathematics? I would like to add some like: Basic functions, Basic algebra, Basic geometry, Basic statistics and probability where articles whose topics are originally explained in primary or secondary school (or college algebra and trigonometry). The word "elementary" is used in a different context in higher mathematics, so I was thinking "basic" was better. Thanks. P.S. If you know the link with a list of the categories on simple, I would appreciate it. (I could not find it.) Lfahlberg (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can create new categories. We manage categories differently here from the way that the other Wikipedias do, so you might want to read about that at Wikipedia:Categories. They should be named using simple language, of course, but the main thing that trips people up a lot is that we want at least three entries in each new category, to keep the category structure simple. When you create a new category, be sure there are already three things ready to go into it and put them in right away.
There are a couple of places you can see a list of categories:
  • Special:Categories: an alphabetical list of all categories coded on pages, including redlinked ones
  • Special:CategoryTree: a category display in tree structure form. This does not show redlinked categories.
Both of those let you specify a starting point. If they aren't what you're looking for, let me know. Have I answered your questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank-you, you have. (I put mathematics in the category of the category tree page and got what I needed.) Also, thanks for the explanations and the edits on the Constant function page. I really appreciate that (and will remember in the future - hopefully :)).Lfahlberg (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance speech?

We've been thanked - will you do an acceptance speech first or will I? Kennedy (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to be more like me, Chenzw, and Osiris apparently. Step it up, guys! ;-) Only (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're all so similar I get mixed up with you already ;) Kennedy (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps using that word "retired". I do not think it means what he thinks it means. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote User:Only/On retiring years ago. Only (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline request of my user sub pages

Hello Auntof6, recently you decline my sub pages deletion request. The reason of the request was that a user Osiris warn me that my user page probably been deleted. I got scared and therefore i moved them on their talk subpages. I want to ask you only one question, if I kept my user pages then they would deleted or remain saved?
Reply me on my talk page. Thanks - Pakistan Celebrations (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of substandard editing

Excuse me Auntof6: the editors at 38.116.192.101 are making questionable edits with vulgar language and hoax pages. Can someone please block them? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag?

Hi Auntof6. I actually realized that your addition of categories have flooded RC. Can you add the flood flag to yourself? Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not this time. The flood flag is for a large number of changes that are pretty much the same. The guideline I was given in the past was to use the flood flag if I was doing more than about 100 identical changes. I used it earlier when I was doing multiple identical changes, but now I am doing different things. It's a lot of category work and I understand how it could look similar, but the changes are for different categories and for different reasons, so the flood flag would not be appropriate. A lot of the changes I'm doing now are marked as minor -- maybe you would like to click on the "Hide small changes" option to remove them from your display. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually asked you to give flood flag to yourself because many vandalism edits are hidden between your changes. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I don't think that's an appropriate reason to use the flood flag. Have you tried hiding the small changes as I suggested? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did already. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 07:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello, I've tried installing an anti-vandal bot but I don't think it's working right now. You'll find the appropriate edits in my contribs. I put up a /run and a /source page but it doesn't seem to have worked. Do you have any tips that I should use? Thanks, Cotevertu (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with any of that. You might try asking at WP:Simple talk. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined A1

A1 seems to apply here if you ask me. It's very short, and it provides little or no meaning. None of the information given is useful, and basic research says it's false anyway, so if it's not A1 it can be deleted as a hoax. TCN7JM 05:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it doesn't apply because the amount of information is enough for a stub. I agree it could be deleted as a hoax, though, so I'll do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. TCN7JM 05:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories about the nervous system

We've now reached the stage where the categories relating to the nervous system are a complete mess. They make no sense, are not defined, and some have only one page. The root, under biology is Category:Neuroscience. This is a peculiar choice, and the content of its main page is weak: Neuroscience.

I would say the root should be called nervous systems, but I am more concerned with the number of undefined categories, and the way they are all have multiple categories, suggesting that authors don't know what to use. It is such a mess that it's difficult to describe in words. We have got to put a stop to this, or the whole idea of having categories will become pointless. We could try and have only two or max. three subcategories to Nervous systems, such as

  • Nervous systems
    • Anatomy of nervous systems
    • Physiology of nervous systems
    • Cell biology of nervous systems, or alternatively
  • Nervous systems
    • Anatomy of nervous systems
    • Neuroscience (whatever that might be...)
      • Physiology of nervous systems
      • Cell biology of nervous systems

I'll pause her so you have a chance to look at it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to sort the category out, but there aren't enough pages to fill some categories and it's all pretty messy. I don't understand why there's a Neuroendocrinology section, it's a major section and I've never heard of it before. However, all of these subcategories come under "Neuroscience". As Neuroscience is a multidisciplinary science of the nervous system. It's just the umbrella term for everything to do with the brain and nervous system. The thing about the nervous system is it is a complex topic. It includes biology, chemistry, physics, maths and psychology. So, there are a lot of topics and subcategories within subcategories will most likely be necessary. I don't dislike your categories though, especially for the simple English wiki. If I were to pick one, I'd pick your first suggestion as if Neuroscience isn't the parent category, then it's not necessary to include in the subcategories. LalaKnows (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at simplifying the category structure. Some of the simplifying was pretty straightforward, where articles were in more than one place in the same branch of the "tree". One or two categories had fewer than three entries, so I recategorized the articles and deleted the category(ies). I'm not sure what else to do right now. Of your two options, I think I also prefer the first. LalaKnows, if you work on this, keep in mind that we try to keep the categories as simple as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. I'll write more articles over time. I wrote Chemical synapse and I'm planning on adding to the nervous system-like categories. Hopefully categories will become more obvious over time. I shall try my best. I'll keep adding to Neuroscience, but, it could take a while before obvious categories appear. Thanks for the comments though, the dialogue really helps! LalaKnows (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should hesitate to add more categories without prior discussion. We are not trying to have all the possible categories, we are trying to have as few categories as possible. This is based on many discussions on this wiki and has widespread support. Judging what is central and essential from all the detail is the essence of good editing here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VIP

There are currently two vandals that need to be blocked, one urgently.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/202.45.119.13

Hi. Could you please block this IP? Thanks in advance, LlamaAl (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One was already blocked by Eptalon. I blocked the other. Have we reverted all the vandalism, or do you want help with that? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah all the vandalism is gone. But please be sure to keep an eye on all IPs in 202.45.119.0/26 (all addresses from 202.45.119.0 to 202.45.119.63), these all seem to be the same school and source of vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to monitor edits from a specific range of IP addresses. If you see more vandalism from there, please report it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brit use of "school"

In British usage the word "school" only applies to institutes of primary and secondary education. "Schools" or "schooling" should not be used as a root for Universities and colleges, at least in Britain. Better is "Educational institutions". The use of "school" is an obvious Americanism, which many do not like. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind bringing this up at WP:Simple Talk? I'm open to making a change here, but the top category for all these is Category:Schools. If we change one, we should change them all, and I'd like to see consensus for that before we proceed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD for mixed nationality

Hey. You've got Category:American Jews listed in that RfD. Did you want to do that? Osiris (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, no I didn't. Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QD over an RfD

Thanks for quickly handling the QD:G12 for the article Plant Patent Act of 1970. My problem was, it was already RfD'd. I was looking the article over before commenting and found the copyright problem. I should have seen it earlier when I tagged the article. I wasn't sure whether to wait out the RfD process or go ahead and QD, but since it was a copyright issue I went ahead. Please tell me if that wasn't the best way to handle it. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you handled it fine. Thanks for mentioning the RfD, which I have now closed. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creation

Im sorry im new to do this...pls how can i create a page without automatic deleting

I assume you're talking about the page you created called "Johncongo". It wasn't automatically deleted. It was deleted because it did not say why Johncongo is notable. Articles here must be about things that are notable. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Notability. You can read about notability for articles about people at Wikipedia:Notability (people).
Are you Johncongo? You should know that people shouldn't usually write articles about themselves. It is considered a conflict of interest. You can read about that at Wikipedia:COI, especially in the section "Autobiography".
I hope this answers your question. By the way, when you write on talk pages, please be sure to sign what you write by putting four tildes ("~~~~") after your text. Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

about Car-free movement (the article)

I recently performed rewording, word removal and redesigns over Car-free movement inside my user space. Hopefully, this article may be ready to get moved into its own article page without redirects. Do you think it's ready? Angela Maureen (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not ready yet. A lot of the complex words have been removed, but there are some other issues. I won't have time to give you specific information until later today.
Do you think you are learning how to simplify articles, so that you could do it on your own? Do you understand why the words I point out are complex? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I try simplifying the articles I create with my best talent and capability. There are many words I don't know that are complex until someone points them out. Whatever the other issues may be, I'll correct them though I may need the help of the other editors. Angela Maureen (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the original, though linguistically complex, read quite well. It told me what the article was about. Reading the simplified version I could not see so clearly what it was saying. Of course the original is also very one-sided, and that's another angle to the business of editing. The text makes factual claims, but the reference gives no idea as to whether it supports the text. So I would look to see a page which is simple, accurate, not biased and supported by reliable sources. It is quite difficult to achieve this. (Please forgive me for butting into your dialogue). Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had a plan for addressing some of that, Mac. I'm trying to do one thing at a time. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more on Car-free movement

I don't really see other problems with Car-free movement. If there are problems, however, can you please detail them? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm sorry I didn't get time to do that yesterday. I'll do that now. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Deaths in the United States by location

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Deaths in the United States by location, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:Deaths in the United States by location and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VIP

Can you please look at the VIP I posted, 198.163.125.17 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) keeps making vandal edits. Thanks for your help. Enfcer (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I have all of that editors edits cleaned up. Enfcer (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

As I wrote in the pages' change summary, I am trying to determine if there is a sufficient number of stubs relating to these topics to create a stub tag. This is incredibly difficult to do if I have to re-create the page each and every time I sit down to do this. If these pages had not been deleted when I first created them back in February, then most likely I would have already been finished and there would have been need to delete them only one time. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked not to do this sort of sub sorting. We specifically try not to sort stubs like you are doing here. So yes it is difficult because it is not encouraged here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Aside from Djsasso's point, we also don't allow subpages for IP users. If you don't want to create an account for yourself, you could work offline if you have other work to do. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of these pages do not interfere with the operations of this Wikipedia. If these pages had not been deleted back in February, then most likely I would have been finished by now and would have put these pages up for deletion myself. And stub sorting is encouraged, since there are multiple stub categories available. If you think stub sorting is such a problem, then you should try to mass-delete all of the various stub tags. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs aren't a problem in general. We just strictly control them. We only create stubs when people are specifically working on them. We don't use stubs to re-categorize articles in the way English Wikipedia does. We are Simple wikipedia and one of the things we do is try to keep things simpler in all aspects, not just the language. One of those things is that we try to cut out the bureaucracy and use stub tags only when absolutely necessary, as such the vast majority of stubs belong in the plain "stub" category and not a specific one. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lana del ray

Are you sure she isn't dating Axl Rose? I found this article that says they were. 80.111.172.25 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who she's dating. If you have a source, go ahead and put that back in the article with a reference. Just please put a date in the text (something like "In March 2014, del Rey was dating...") so that it doesn't go out of date. My main issue with your changes was that you changed her birth year without giving a reference. Changes to basic facts should always have references. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Educational establishments nudge

Do you think we have enough consensus to move on this? It would involve changing the root to "Educational institutions" and using the category "Schools" for primary and secondary schools. In placing articles in lower categories, no account should be taken of whatever terms they use, so Eton College goes under "Schools", but University College London is under "Universities". It's not an RfD, just an operational change which you might make whenever you think it is right to do it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we have consensus. I'll make a first pass at it, but I think the changes will be a little more involved than what you mention. A lot of the "Schools in" categories have colleges and universities underneath, and that will need to be changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a first pass. I need to back and see what categories now have only one or two entries, and see if their contents should be recategorized. Take a look and tell me what you think. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted a few cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've added some categories to some of the ones you adjusted. When you remove a category like "Schools in Scotland" because of an issue with the "schools" part, you have to add back a category to keep the "Scotland" part. I think I've taken care of all the ones you changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a further look. Whereas we can use the single word "schools" for Primary & secondary education, we need a formula for higher education. I would suggest "Universities and colleges" or maybe "Higher education" or "Tertiary education". Or even "Post-school institutions". There are a great variety of types of post-school education and training, and we need a category to cover all institutions which offer teaching and qualifications at that level. America has city colleges, Germany has technical high schools, which I think are tertiary in nature. Although called neither university nor college, we can agree that medical schools are really tertiary in nature and content. So my suggestion is that the uber-category "Educational institutions" would first split into "Schools" and "Tertiary education" (or whatever).
Tertiary education would include tertiary training in law, engineering, medicine &c as well as more general institutes of higher learning.
At present "Educational institutions" splits into "Schools" (OK, as discussed), "Engineering schools" (ridiculous, at least two or three levels too high) and "Types of educational institutions", also ridiculous because its meaning is the same as Educational institutions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be getting a bit too complex. Also, if we were going to use a term like "tertiary education", then we should be using "primary" and "secondary" for the lower levels. However, you could bring it up with the community if you want.
"Types of educational institution" is not ridiculous. That category is used to group articles about types of EIs, as opposed to actual institutions. It contains only articles, not categories. A category that would contain other categories would be named something like "Educational institutions by type". See the difference? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

I was trying to fix this article User:Car-free movement by renaming it out of the user's sub page. At any rate I seem to have created a double redirect and it's still not fixed. It's been lying around in the new pages area for days. I appreciate it if you could fix this. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had left it alone. It was moved to userspace so the creator could improve it, and I had been working with her on it. The software leaves pages like that in the new pages list under regular pages even if they are moved to userspace. Did you check with the user before you worked in her userspace? Your changes definitely made it better, but aborted the creator's learning process. However, what's done is done. I have moved the article, and will have to find another opportunity to work with that editor. If you see another case like this, please check before doing anything with it. --A discouraged Auntof6 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about the software glitch. I worked on it as a new page that had no activity for nearly a week. Lesson learned. Rus793 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, checking with you... there is another userpage on the new pages list User:Ravave/Tape 407. Rus793 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one for Ravave? That one is the same kind of thing. When you see a user page in the list of new articles (as opposed to the list of new user pages), it means it has been moved from mainspace to userspace. Beyond that, just be sure to check with a user before editing a page in their userspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending request for permission

Hey, sorry to sound impatient but I've had a request for rollback pending for over a week. You seem recently active so I figured I'd just bring it to your attention in case it was missed by other sysops so that there doesn't become a backlog on the page. Thanks, GeorgeBarnick (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've replied "not yet" to your request. There are several "gotchas" that new editors here often run across, and I'd rather see you get used to the way we do things for a while before getting the rollback right. Feel free to ask if you have any questions! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fine. :) Thankfully Twinkle handles rolling back edits pretty well here, so that will suffice for me for the time being. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

108.194.183.0‎

Hi!

Block and nuke 108.194.183.0‎ (talk · contribs) contribs please.

Cheers, --Alan (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electric arc page deletion

Excuse me Auntof6, I'd like to work on Electric arc and do some simplifying. The article should have not been erased; that embarrasses me and makes me look like a failure. You know, sometimes, finding simple words on certain articles isn't always easy. The fact that I have learning and ADHD issues does not make things any easier. I think rewording Electric arc would be much better than deleting. Which words in the article are complex/should be removed or made simple? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was very little simplifying from the enwiki version, so it qualified for quick deletion. I was going to leave you a message about deleting it, but I had to take care of something IRL (in real life) first and didn't get back here until now. I have restored the article into your userspace for you to work on, and I will put a list of some of the complex words on the talk page.
I understand that you have issues, but even though that is true, the articles here still need to meet requirements. Please don't feel like a total failure when your articles are deleted or tagged. You create a lot of articles, and that's good! We just need to help you get them into good shape sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tape 407

Take another look. I can't get the "scissor" more. Tell me if the article is ready. --Ravave (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry cos no make editions in these days, I had my computer broken. Well, I make another changes to the browse, if isn't perfect yet, you can edit. --Ravave (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi Auntof6, I was wondering when you have some time to spare, can you check the hooks. We haven't had an update for 17 days! We already have one hook. Can you check the rest. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will if you promise not to delete the section I comment on again, at least not without an explanation. I was pretty ticked off when that happened! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6, we're just one biographical hook away for another update. Can you review one please? It's been over two month since an update! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can review one. Does it need to be a biographical one? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have two non-biographical hooks and we need three biographical hooks. I think I heard this from Osiris about this balance. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portals?!

We don't have "portals", do we? But we do have a category "Semi-protected portals"! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't have them, it was being populated by an error in the code of the protection template. Not sure why that page was getting put in it. Either way the category is now gone. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DJ. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islands of Scotland

I'm not quite sure why you are removing pages from Category:Islands of Scotland and putting them under the general category of Scotland. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I did that with are not about islands. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting

If I may quote from Wikipedia:Stub: "However, stubs should not have stub [tag] on them for a long time. They should be categorized (put into) into stub categories." With the game show article, the examples given are all television programs and the article is in the "television game shows" and "television genres" categories. Also, logically it would be pointless for this Wikipedia to have stub categories unless it was expected for the articles to be sorted. (If it really bothers you that these categories exist, you could either nominate them for deletion or you could expand these articles, which would remove the need to sort them.) 138.210.194.18 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixes of national ancestry categories

Hey, I've closed WP:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Categories showing mixes of national ancestry (better late than never, I guess). Unfortunately I have very little time to dedicate to Wikipedia currently, but I will help out with the work as much as I can. :) -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for closing. I don't mind doing the work myself. I think it could be a little tricky to have more than one person work on it anyway, because there are articles that have more than one of the categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

excessive cats continued...

I ran across Category:Agencies of the United Kingdom Government today. I'm wondering what its definition might be. I mean, the UK government pays for a lot of public services which are not agencies, or are they? Universities, hospitals... The Met Office has been effectively independent since its origin in the 19th century. How is it an agency of government? It is a public service or, in part, a commercial activity. It's different for the DVLC, which is doing exactly what it is ordered to do by the Dept of Transport. Further, I see the category was created by an inexperienced user. I feel editors should not be allowed to put up categories until they have a good understanding of what we are about. They can always ask an admin if they think a category is needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with UK agencies, so I can't speak to what that category should include. Have you compared it to what's on enwiki, or maybe asked the user who created it? As for restricting new users from creating new categories, I understand your frustration, but I don't see that happening. It would go against Wikipedia's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" idea. --Auntof6 (talk)
Ah, but what does that refer to? We already have restrictions on importer, rollbacker, deletion is for admins, and so on. Creating categories is not an addition of content to an article, it is a change in the framework which affects many articles. We have seen again and again that inexperienced users just don't understand the implications of the categories they create. Some of them deliberately run against our consensus because they just don't agree with the consensus. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "Anything goes"! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to different things, including restricting edits for a class of people (as opposed to individuals who have done something to merit the restriction). Importing, rollbacking, deletion, etc. are functions, not editing. They change article content, but there are other ways for people without those rights to do the same thing (with the exception of deleting, of course).
Aside from that, how would you propose we determine that a user has "a good understanding of what we are about"? I don't think we need another administrative process like that. In any case, I don't think the number of new categories we get is unmanageable. Remember, I do share your frustration, I just don't think a formal restriction is a good idea. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Reception123's talk page.
Message added 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about me

I make a little edition in my userspace. Check it out if in this time is allright, if is not, you can edit, you have my permission. --Ravave (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't trouble to speak, but write seems a few hard. Well, I'm thinking in deleted the userspace page and start to zero. I guess I can make stubs about geography (for example), in those themes I haven't problems at all. Thank you anyway. --Ravave (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC) I'd be learn about the vocabulary in here[reply]

Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom

Hey Auntof6, should Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom be renamed to Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I'd still mention the article about the medal in a hatnote. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what's a hatnote? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short note at the top of a page -- you've probably seen them without knowing what they're called. They are best done with templates. see en:Wikipedia:Hatnote for more info. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a logical suggestion, but I hate to see such a word as "recipients". With Nobel Prizes we use "winners", which is at least a word at the level of ordinary spoken English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratosaurs vs Ceratosauria categories

Well, I agree the two categories should be merged. I rather favour using the root word in plural rather than the Latin suffix. The Linnaean system uses different suffixes for different levels in the hierarchy. Now that has these disadvantages:

  1. It's less simple
  2. Experts disagree about the levels of taxonomy. Different sources put a group into a different level of the hierarchy. Humans have moved from being Hominidae to Homininae to Hominini to Hominina. It's crazy, and just about incomprehensible to a non-specialist.
  3. The whole Linnaean system may be on the way out. English wiki has largely moved to nests of clades, but still allows Linnaean if editors prefer it. On this wiki I have used the Linnaean system (its being more familiar) but have reduced the number of levels in the taxoboxes. And I have used the root term (eg "Ichthyosaur") for higher-level pages rather than the Linnaean term ("Ichthyosauria" or "Ichthyopterygia")

I regret we do not have consistency. Where possible I think we should use the noun in plural without its latin ending for categories above genus, so in this case I would choose "Ceratosaurs" and soft redirect Ceratosauria to it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Château de Lunéville

Hi I do not know why this happens. But could you move the User: bit from the title;e of the following page.........User:Château de Lunéville �Thank youuuuuuu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplegoose (talkcontribs) 07:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean move it to articlespace? I could, but it might get deleted because of the umsimplified part from the enwiki article. Even the other parts of it need simplifying, for vocabulary and long sentences, and there's a whole empty section. I'd recommend that you work on the article some more first. In the meantime, I've moved it back to your userspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right sorted it out a bit. Would you mind moving it now please it will not let me and its making my blood boil to be honest haha Simplegoose (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got it taken care of. I suspect general users aren't allowed to do cross-namespace moves. It does still need simplifying, though. Maybe you could take care of that before you do too much else? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Richardson need to be rewritten

I think that one article is poorly written. I have found some evidence that you would like to look into, and I think it should rewritten and understandable. I have done alot of homework on different studys. Cmacmore1987 (talk)

Why do you think it is poorly written? I think it is very easy to understand. It has been nominated to be deleted, though (see here). What evidence are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it need to written correctly because who ever written the article needs to state all the details and facts. Evidence the individual was also a voice actor in two cartoon series. I done some research and found this please check here voicechasers.com Cmacmore1987 (talk)

The fact that something is missing doesn't make it incorrect. If you think something is missing, why not add it to the article yourself? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will help rewrite the article. Can you assist by correct verification in the text. If I send you what i have written and discover? Cmacmore1987 (talk)

Sorry, no. The articles about this person have been deleted or proposed for deletion at other Wikipedias as well, and that's a good sign he isn't notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. If you are going to update the article, you should probably do it soon because the RfD is scheduled to end tomorrow. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House of Colonna

right fair enough I had not simplified it but there is a need to give me a chance to actually do so before you delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Simplegoose (talkcontribs) 12:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was a little quick, but how much time do you need? Quite a few of your recent articles weren't simple enough, yet you went on to create more without simplifying the existing ones. The goal here isn't the number of articles, it's having articles in simple language. My view is that articles sbould be simple from the start. If you need time to work on them to get them simplified, that can be done in userspace.
By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages. First because it's considerate, and second because archiving bots don't archive sections without datestamps. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion category

Thank you anyway !. פארוק (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP POV

I just saw you mass delete those pages. He/She just created another page, should we also block, this user? Enfcer (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. They just got the new page in before I could do the block. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just didn't want to step on toes, when I saw the other edits come through after your delete, and take additional measures. Enfcer (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It doesn't hurt to ask, even though I was already taking care of it! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a lot of pages. I had seen a lot of those on the log but did not realize He/She made that many. Enfcer (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sure was. I was going to try to wade through them, but the last straw was when they started having a lot of emotionally-charged language related to political situations. I think we lost some that weren't problems, but it's not worth picking through them. There were probably even more, because I don't think the mass delete function deletes any that were edited by anyone other than the creator, and I had edited quite a few already. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cold War figures

Hey Auntof6, it's been awhile. I recently created a new template titled Template:Cold War figures. I was wondering, if you have spare time, you can help me add this template to the pages it relates to and add Category:Cold War figures. Just asking. Also there are some sections in the template that don't appear on the page. Is there a limit on templates? Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really necessary that large templates are set as collapsed. The template was larger than the content of the page! And if we have the category, why do we need the template, and vice versa? Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mac, are you planning to do anything else with the template? I was about to start looking at it, but there's no point if someone else is changing it at the same time. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no intent to do more. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TDKR, I discovered the reason that some of the data doesn't display. The underlying template, {{Military navigation}} has a limit of 15 groups. I will update that template to match the enwiki one. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fixed. As for the rest, Mac asks a good question. In the spirit of trying to keep things simple, do we need both the template and the category? I'm sure there are other navboxes that more or less duplicate categories, but that doesn't mean we have to make more of them. I see we already have a category for Cold War leaders. Maybe that's enough, maybe we don't need one for all Cold War figures. What do you think?
By the way, what are the criteria for being included in the template? It would be tempting to include anyone who was in government during the Cold War, but that would quickly get out of hand. What determines whether a person is a "cold war figure"? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re redlinks

FYI, I have raised a question about redlinks at Wikipedia talk:Red link. S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what was incorrect about "under" on Cassadee Pope

Excuse me Auntof6: what was incorrect about using under on Cassadee Pope? Sometimes I can't always find better words to substitute. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Under favorable reviews" just isn't a correct way to say it. You could say "to favorable reviews", or say it the way I did. I did it the way I did for two reasons. First, it let me make the sentences shorter. Second, "to favorable reviews" is a little idiomatic and therefore harder for a non-English speaker to understand.
I've seen you use the word under incorrectly in other contexts as well, but I don't remember a specific example right now. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we have to categorise the category somehow? —Microchip08 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories called "Categories named after" don't have general categories on them. The general categories go on the article about the person. I think of it this way: the category for a person might have in it articles about the person, people they're related to, things they created, historic events they're associated with, and more. It isn't helpful to have all those things under a category like writers. That's why we don't put general categories on the "named after" categories. Make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Entertainment Corporation

I did not copyright I put it in my own wordsTristan.andrade.136 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article was the same as the text on the website at http://www.image-cie.com/index.php?lang=en, under a couple of the tabs at that URL. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AWB edits

Hi Auntof6 - I have noticed that during the past couple of weeks you've made a lot of edits using AWB. While this is great, the many edits makes new changes patrolling more difficult. I am just writing to ask if you'd be willing to set the flood flag on yourself next time you do a lot of AWB work? Thanks so much for being a great administrator and for all the work you do. MJ94 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments! I understand your concern, and I do use the flood flag sometimes. However, I was asked not to use it unless I was doing more than about 100 changes that are basically the same. The feeling here is that we shouldn't be too quick to use the flood flag. The changes I did just now were similar enough, but there were not over 100 of them. I do flag most such changes as minor, so you can filter them out of recent changes by clicking on the option "Hide small changes". (Of course, that would also filter out other changes marked as minor.) I also try to do these groups of changes very quickly, so that they are all together in recent changes instead of spread out, which IMO would make it harder to pick out other changes from among them. I hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping

The Big Lakes Weekend has now ended in all of the time zones. Thank you for your contributions to the Big Lakes Weekend (BLW). We have created 37 articles , made 129 edits to pages, 9 redirects. For more information on who did what please check out the organization page. I hope you had fun and liked creating all those articles and editing all those articles and I hope we get to do another Big Weekend sometime. Thanks again for helping. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fruits & nuts

I think we should allow the category "nuts" to include things called 'nuts' in everyday language. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of Simple, and an untutored person would have difficulty finding what they want. Fruits are another category where there is a big difference between ordinary language and botanical definition. Nuts are, of course, fruits.... In each case I think we should allow the wider definition for categories. Actually, we don't have a category "seeds", but it would not help someone who thinks a Brazil nut is a nut! If you are really against this, I see English wiki has a category "Edible nuts and seeds". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being inaccurate helps anybody, but you could bring this up for general discussion. We could always put hatnotes in the categories to explain this issue and point people to related categories. The "Edible nuts and seeds" category would be good, if we have enough pages to go into it.
You're right about the way the term "fruit" is used. My favorite example is the tomato, which is botanically a fruit, but nutritionally a vegetable. Then there's pistachio, which we call a nut but is actually a seed, and is the only seed that my grocery store keeps in the produce department instead of with the nuts! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't have so many pages on this as I supposed, so let's go with "edible nuts and seeds" with, I suppose, Foods and Nuts as parents Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I took off the parent cat "nuts" because seeds aren't nuts. We might need to add the new cat to some or all of the entries there. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

taxoboxes on Animalia categories

Our present agreed colour for Animalia taxoboxes is rgb(220,220,183). Is there a general way to substitute it for pink on Animalia category pages? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with controlling the color on those, and I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you explain more? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here goes (it's not the easiest thing to explain in words...). After discussion, Osiris changed the main taxobox template so that it automatically puts up the new colour onto pages which (a) have a Kingdom label such as Animalia as a trigger, and (b) do not have any other colour listed on the individual page taxobox. (pause for breath) In a similar way all other taxoboxes have colours based on rather laid-back versions of those used on En wiki. Now that leaves taxoboxes on Category pages still showing the old colours (if they have a taxobox at all). As you are Chef des Categories, I thought you might know how to fix it so that the content pages and the category pages matched. I think I'll put a note on Os' talk page so he can take it up when he has time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess. Personally, I don't think those templates (or most other templates) belong on the category pages to begin with. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling and wheels in the natural world

I don't know how you do it on Simple English, but on the standard English Wikipedia we don't remove big portions of text from articles without discussion. I'm putting the fiction section back. If you want, put a template for a suggested split. Swpb (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we want articles that are about one subject. If the subject of this article is what the title says, then the sections that I and others have removed don't seem to fit. Instead of saying you can explain why the sections should remain, why not go ahead and actually explain it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know...

DeFacto is back again. His latest account is User:There is another possibility (See edits here and over at en)--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please report things like this at the Admins noticeboard, not on the talk pages of individual admins. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removal of word "however" on pages I create

For what reason is the word however taken out of pages I create? Tell me that, please. Angela Maureen (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I remove it, it's usually either because it makes the text simpler or because it improves the tone of the article. It can also be hard to use it without making sentences more complex than they need to be. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the page Rani Romanov, Grand Duke of Russia

hello, the page isn't either fake or a hoax. His father is the grandson of Grand Duke Andrei of Russia. You can find the name Rani romanov as the house head on many pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetriaauthor (talkcontribs) 21:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I couldn't find it on any pages, at least not in English. I looked at the website indicated as the source of the material and couldn't find it there. I did a web search and a search on English Wikipedia, and didn't find him or either of his parents. Can you point to a specific source of information about him?
By the way, when you write on a talk page, please sign your post by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Imperialfamily.ru. his name can be found on that website. Please excuse me about the signing thing, it's just I don't know how to do that process and I don't wanna mess things up!

I looked there and didn't find him. Can you give a specific URL?
As for the signing, you just type the four characters I indicated at the end of your post, and Wikipedia changes them to your signature when you save the post. It's considered rude and neglectful if you don't do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i'm so sorry, i didn't mean to be rude at all! Anyways, these are the pages where you can find the name of his highness http://imperialfamily.ru/?page_id=2 and http://imperialfamily.ru/?page_id=8 . (~~~~)

adding primary sources tag to the page of "Stacy Lattisaw"

A primary sources tag was marked on the page of Stacy Lattisaw. What is the reason to that? Angela Maureen (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put that tag on because the only source given for the article is Lattisaw's own web site. That kind of source is not considered reliable because it exists to be publicity for the subject and it wouldn't have a neutral point of view. There is also no editorial oversight like reliable secondary sources have. That means there is no one making sure the information there gives a complete and accurate picture of the subject -- it only gives information the subject wants given.
While we're talking about sources on articles about people, I saw that one you created recently about a living person had no sources at all, and you created it with the "unsourced BLP" tag. Articles about living people are supposed to have sources. If you can't find a source, it's probably better not to create the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

month/year format

Hey Auntof6, for what reason is of removed? As example, the saying June of 2012 becomes June 2012, and December of 2014 becomes December 2014. What's the reason for removing of? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's simpler, and it's more correct. Using the "of" is more colloquial, something you don't do in an encyclopedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed user rights

Hello. I have been contributing to English, Urdu, and Hindi wikipedia and have joined Simple English Wikipedia now. I request you to grant me confirmed user status for smooth experience in contributing to this wikipedia.  SAMI  talk 14:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are already autoconfirmed, which gives the same rights. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the time I requested for Confirmed User rights, I was not an auto-confirmed and CAPTCHA was there on every edit.  SAMI  talk 09:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP/User

Just so you know your section was fine. We just won't confirm or deny. Just didn't want you to think you had done anything bad. It is perfectly fine to bring a user and an IP to CUs to check we just won't comment publicly on if they are the same person. Sometimes it is needed and helpful for CUs if someone does include IPs in a sock request. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. I was just about to tell Mr Wiki Pro not to mention that kind of thing publicly, either, but I won't do that. I'll put the sections back later when I'm on my main PC doing it on the tablet is a big pain! --Auntof6 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its not a big deal. Its all good. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"movie" vs "film"

For what reason does the Simple English use movie instead of film? Is film complex? Angela Maureen (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is the reason. Movie is simple because it is unambiguous. Film means more than one thing and isn't as widely used as movie. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removing word "due to"

Whenever I put due to, that is often removed and replaced by other terms. For what reason is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are simpler ways of saying it. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks for the new articles

Hello Auntof6, please take a view of this advice as an example. Do you make a reference about it?. greetings.----Je7roi (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not answering sooner. I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you ask your question a different way? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding of word "on"

For some reason as an example: "this movie was released October 16, 1992" becomes "this movie was released on October 16, 1992". What reason is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not correct English to leave out the word "on". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you know what "Wikipedia watch.org" is because one of the IPs said he would report me to them. I just checked my E-mail and I have two one saying Wikipedia watch.org is going to write a report on my "vandalisms" and on other one said "I'm gonna pay for vandalising".--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what that might be. I assume you haven't vandalized anything, so it's probably just the vandal trying to get your goat. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because he kept saying his edits were constructive but I cannot find anything about this Wikipedia watch.org I'm assuming it's not run by wikimedia foundation.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I may not be as knowledgeable as some of the other admins -- you could ask at WP:AN if you want to check further. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will later. The thing is I just check my I box and I have four more abusive and threatening emails from this person.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could stop the IP from sending email. Before doing that, I would want to see for myself what exactly he/she is sending, just to be sure I agree it warrants blocking email. Can you email me and tell me which IP it is, and copy and paste the objectionable text from the emails? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I shall forward it on to you later (I'm using my iPad mini to edit now and I would rather do it via my laptop). I looked on the recipients list and it said Jimbo Wales, Chenzw, Bsadowski1 and a few others go it as well. The latest one that me and Bsadowski1 got said something along the lines of "I know your name you will die in agony"-Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in re: this

I would have warned more if the user hadn't already been reverted like 4 times before I reached him. And he had upwards of 10-15 vandalizing edits to that one page. The 4im seemed justified to me in that instance. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 05:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know it seems like it, but the idea is to give the offending editor the benefit of the doubt by not assuming they know they shouldn't vandalize here. If no one tells them they shouldn't do it, they can say they didn't know. It seems like it should be common sense, but it's not. I worked for a company that had to put notices all over its systems saying that only authorized people were allowed to access them, just to protect themselves in case of hacking. It made things harder for the authorized people, because we had to go through the extra screens to get to where we needed to be, but there had been a legal finding that they had to do that in order to be able to prosecute hackers.
I also get irritated by needing to do the graduated warnings, but it's the way the system is set up. The only exception I usually make is when the edits are really offensive (profanity, attack verbiage, etc.). I didn't look at all this person's edits, but the worst thing I saw was "poo", and that's not very offensive. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected sockpuppets of Looneyboy6

A random IP troll recreated it again should it be deleted?--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the complex words on the Glucose meter page

Before I can simplify the page, I wanna know what styles or wording are complex on the page so I can properly simplify the article. I'm waiting for information on this. Angela Maureen (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're waiting. I'm working on some other things right now. I haven't forgotten about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some complex words:
devices, approximate, concentration, key, element, monitoring, obtained, pricking, lancet, mg/dl, latent, autoimmune, adopted
Also, some of the sentences could be divided into shorter ones. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took certain complex wording away, shortened some sentence areas and reworded others. The words latent and autoimmune were left due to the condition's name; I linked it. How's the article? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you did was good. You still left some complex stuff, so I made some changes, too. Take a look at what I did and let me know if you have any questions. I'd like you to understand the changes and not just take my word for it, so that you learn more about making articles simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at CRRaysHead90's talk page.
Message added 03:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 03:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at CRRaysHead90's talk page.
Message added 03:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 03:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actors' pages making simple

Somehow, the wordings change from "an American actress who acted on stage and in movies" to "an American actress. She acted on stage and in movies". For what reason would that happen? Angela Maureen (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of making the language simple is that the sentences shouldn't be longer than needed. In the first sentence, it's better to make a very simple statement of who the person was -- usually just the name, birth/death dates, nationality, and mention of the reason they're known, such as their profession (for example, "Jane Doe (January 1, 1950 - December 31, 2000) was an American actress."). It's better to put other details in separate sentences. Any time you have a sentence like "John Doe was an X who...", you can usually put the part after the "who" in a separate sentence.
The reason for this is so that people whose English isn't very good can read the articles one sentence at a time, and not have to figure out as much at one time. That's also the reason we don't use extra words that don't add to the meaning of a sentence -- for example, we say things like "London is in England" instead of "London is located (or situated or found) in England". --Auntof6 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

moving Glucose meter to own article

Do you think Glucose meter can be moved into a proper page after the simplifying that we did recently? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is probably good enough now. Do you understand the reason for all the changes that were made? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand. This article was complex. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Futures

I received that warning recently on Simple English. The warning tells me I should be really careful. Somehow, the rules keep getting tighter and tighter, and that means I might just abandon Simple English Wikipedia altogether. Whenever others condemn me for certain edits or creating articles in certain styles, that makes me really question my future here; makes me wonder: am I qualified to be editing Simple English. Because of the rules tightening and condemnation I get from other Simple editors, sometimes, I may have to discontinue editing Simple. I feel like a questionable and worthless editor when the others condemn me when I make mistakes. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help!

Please ban User:September 1988, they are vandalising and adding fake things! --Chinese man 38202 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions I have

You said the only method that you knew was telling me. Well really, I ain't perfect, and nobody is. Please look at my English Wikipedia pages; you will see I suffer from conditions listed there: being neurotic, panic attack, generalized anxiety. I also have learning troubles. When someone gets mad with me, however, and tells me that I'm not doing a good enough job, I feel embarrassed and insulted. My reputation is always on the line, so I've gotta be very careful. I cannot afford to be blocked, and I don't use email service due to privacy issue. Sometimes, my writing is naturally complex. I don't know any other way. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is thinking of blocking you. The only thing I'm thinking of doing if we can't get the reference thing under control is to have you to work in your userspace and get someone to review your work before putting it in mainspace.
My main goal is for the articles here to be simple, well-written, accurate, and follow policies and guidelines. All the corrections I make to your articles, and all the things I mention to you, are to get our articles in line with those things. My secondary goal is for the editors here to be able to write in accordance with those things themselves, so that maintenance tags aren't necessary and other editors have more time to work on their own things.
I think most people's writing is naturally complex. Regular English is one of the hardest languages there is, and it just makes it harder to have to use only part of it to write in simple language. I've seen you learn specific things about making the language simple, and I'm sure you will learn more. However, you can't learn it if no one tells you where the issues are.
I know you have the conditions you mentioned. If I knew a way to tell you about article issues without triggering those conditions, I would do so. If you know a way I can do that, please tell me. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal health being complex

Maternal health was marked complex, though the specific complex words weren't given out. Can someone tell me what complex words and styles are involved in the page? Angela Maureen (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complex words include: childbirth, postpartum, dimensions, family planning, preconception, prenatal, postnatal, Sub-Saharan (Sub-Saharan Africa), poverty, developing countries, stricken, behaviors, engage, access, highly, associated. Note that there are links for some of them, but it might be better to reword than to just add the links.
Some of the sentences could be divided into shorter ones, as well.
By the way, when you post about articles on talk pages, please link to the articles you're talking about. That makes it easier for others to get to the articles. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

‎TDKR Chicago 101

Auntof6, I'm really irritated with ‎TDKR Chicago 101. He's reverting my good edits. All I'm doing is fixing factual errors. He's also cyberbullying and harassing me. --Chinese man 38202 (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting his vandalism. I wrote something on your talk page, but I think he wrote over it. Check view history. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TDKR, he was doing the same thing with another user the other day. I see that he has now been blocked for a week. Thanks for the reverts you did. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your change and comment of: say what the term actually means, also don't just say that it's a music thing -- it's more than that. I tried to simplify this article and add a reference only because I have an interest in the topic. I have also simplified several others of similar complexity by same editor. I practically rewrote and gave references to Tardive dyskinesia. May you please check that article and see if it meets your specifications? I do have a medical background as well as in punk rock (drummer).

I too am sensitive and allergic to perceived pickiness. Leaving a critical comment in a edit summary regarding my change made in good faith (and not a bad edit), I perceive as fussing and it rattles my day. Just saying simplify as the edit summary would have been enough. I actually do follow my edits after the fact and learn easily what not to do again by changes that have been made. So for my happiness here, I think I probably won't be making changes to or patrolling any other related articles. Please take the meaning because I do not wish to fuss either. That is hypocritical on my part. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 12:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Mr Wiki Pro's talk page.
Message added 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of computer problem

My Compaq computer crashed recently. I'm gonna have an extremely hard time simplifying any articles for three to seven days. Please remain patient, because I'm getting the computer checked out at this point. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know, and I hope it gets fixed soon without costing too much. I wasn't in a hurry for the simplifying to be done anyway, as long as it's sitting in your userspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hi there.

I have moved the discussion to your talk page. You would prefer to see vandalism work here than generally editing in the mainspace? --AkifumiiTalk 05:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in getting the rollback right in the future, we would want some of your work to be with undoing vandalism work, because rollback is for reverting vandalism. However, it's probably best to do different kinds of editing, to get used to the way this Wiki works. We do some things differently from English Wikipedia, and when you're not familiar with it, it's possible to mistake some valid edits for vandalism. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems pretty hard to come across vandalism on this wiki. I will revert vandalism when I can. --AkifumiiTalk 06:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transit bus merging notice

Several months ago in December 2013 you proposed a merge for Transit bus. What was the reason for proposing the merge? Transit bus has its own article on the English Wikipedia. Why not Simple? The article seems perfect in its own right on here. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now, I think it's OK on its own. I do think it needs copy editing and simplifying, though so I've tagged it for those.
By the way, when you refer to an article in a talk page post like this, please link the article. Putting the title in bold doesn't help anything. Linking it does people the courtesy of giving them an easy way to get to the article that you want them to look at. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

simplified one article, getting another ready

I had Sex-positive feminism simplified/reworded. Next one will be Maternal health. Is SPF ready for its own page? I'm working from Des Moines Library. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked me about this above. I didn't reply yet because I've been working on other things. You need to give people a bit of time to reply. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Griffinofwales's talk page.
Message added 09:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Griffinofwales (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

any other simplifying needed for the article I'm working

I recently did simplifying on the article you directed for my userspace. Any more simplifying needed? Also, which better words would be a replacement for complex words? Angela Maureen (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Sex-positive feminism. Here are some comments:
  • Most of what you did is really good!
  • I see that you split the first sentence into two. The first sentence that's there now should say something about the movement, not just that it is one. Just be fairly brief about it.
  • You replaced "centers on" with "looks at". That's not a good choice for two reasons: 1) a movement can't look at anything (only people can look at something), and 2) the idea of a movement isn't to look at something, it's a common belief or viewpoint. Try starting that sentence with "People in the movement".
  • About the second paragraph (the one about feminists and lesbianism): you haven't shown how that is related to the subject of the article. Either make that connection, or remove the paragraph. If you keep it, the sentences need to be simplified. For example, the phrase "It has been pointed out that" can be removed.
  • The last sentence, about sex-positive feminism being difficult to define, would be better up in the first paragraph, if not removed altogether. When you say something can be difficult to define, you expect to see an attempt to define it right after that.
Work on that, and let me know when you'd like me to look at it again.
By the way, are you planning to simplify Maternal health? That one is actually more complex than this one. I can move it to your userspace if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have simplified Sex-positive feminism on a computer in the Des Moines Public Library. I'm using that until another permanent computer comes up into my apartment. I also removed a complex area. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence still needs to say more than that SPF (if you'll allow me to abbreviate) is a movement. It just doesn't read well the way it is. You could say what the movement is about, or put back the part about when it started.
The sentence that says what the movement is about still uses an inappropriate verb -- a movement can't have ideas, either. I would start that sentence with something like "People in the movement believe".
You removed part of the paragraph about lesbianism. However, the part you left is a follow-on to the part you took out, so the part that's left doesn't make sense by itself. I think the rest of that paragraph should come out, because it seems unrelated to the rest of the article. If you leave it in, it needs to show why it's related to SPF.
Questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've performed reword on certain areas. I also made first paragraphs make more sense. I wonder if there's anything else here. I may need help from certain others on the article; this is not really getting anywhere. Angela Maureen (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three things I mentioned in my last post, you only did one of them (the second one). If you don't understand the reason for my suggestions, feel free to ask. If you disagree with them or just plain don't want to do them, feel free to say that, too. But I'm offended by you saying you think this isn't getting anywhere. I've put time into trying to help you get this article and quite a few others into good shape. I think you have improved the article, but there are still problems that I've tried to point out to you. I could fix them myself, but you need to be able to write well if you're creating articles here. Feel free to ask others for help if you want. I might not be communicating the issues to you well enough, and someone else might be able to do it better. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that lesbian statement from this article. Do you think that the article is now simple enough for its own space? After I finish simplifying, Maternal health is next for simplifying. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of grammar fixes and added a link for a complex term (movement). The only things I can see now are to add references (really needed in this kind of article) and simplify or explain the term sex philosophy. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently rented a computer the other day, attached it with Mediacom Cable in the Des Moines metropolitan area. I added some references to "Sex-positive feminism" and explained sex philosophy using a reference. Is the article good now? Angela Maureen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better! The first reference you added doesn't mention sex philosophy, so I still don't see an explanation of that. That reference is a good general one for the article, though, so you could put it after the first sentence instead of after the second sentence. That leaves "sex philosophy" without an explanation. If you got the term "sex philosophy" from somewhere, maybe you could use that as a source. The other options would be to either explain it, or to remove the sentence about sex philosophy. The only other thing is that it would be good to have a reference for the statement about Gayle Rubin. There's a reference for it in the enwiki article, so you could copy it from there. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had sex philosophy taken out and relocated the cite to the very first sentence. Is the article ready? Angela Maureen (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should really have a reference for the statement about Gayle Rubin, but the enwiki article doesn't have one, either. I'll move the article back to mainspace now. Good work! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...is abusing their talk page access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Thank you very much, I've already noticed your edits, and I'll work to expand this articles soon, regards --MohamedTalk 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. The other thing you could do is link to Anhui in those articles, since there is an article on that already. Regards. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll do this now, regards --MohamedTalk 05:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Chicago

Hey Auntof6, when I looked at the category of Roads of Chicago and Streets of Chicago at the English Wikipedia it had Category:Geography of Chicago. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why they would do that. In any case, we don't categorize like that here. We use the geography categories for things like mountains, bodies of water, etc. We put roads and streets under transport/transportation.
Also, remember that most categories like this go in at least two other categories. For something like "roads in Chicago", you'd have 1) something like either "Chicago" or "Transport in Chicago", and 2) one for roads or transport in Illinois (or in the US, if there wasn't a category for Illinois). You want to be able to find the category through both paths in the category tree. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for helping me, I hope to help more, with my regards MohamedTalk 05:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, It seems that I did't mean to do that edit :) regards --MohamedTalk 12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FDR

Hey Auntof6, should Franklin Delano Roosevelt be moved to Franklin D. Roosevelt. I think with the initial D. is the most common name for FDR. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is. We have the redirect to cover articles that refer to him with just the initial. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

Hey Auntof6 how can you nominate a user to be an admin. I know the page and all, but how can I write the nomination. There appears to be a template with Wikipedia:Reuquest for admin/[user name] which I can understand.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done it, but there are instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Administrator. It looks like it's automated, so I assume it gives you somewhere to write whatever text you want. What the instructions don't say is that it's good to know that the person will accept before nominating them -- otherwise, if they decline, then we just have stuff to clean up. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ophedi

Hey Auntof6, remember about me writing the statement on Malaysian flight 17, and that user was telling me how insensible it was. Well he/she is still bothering and he/she is being the insensible one. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I issued a warning. For your part, try not to stoop to the other person's level and see their point of view, even if you disagree with it. Calling that user insensible was not necessary. Any admins looking at the exchange could see for themselves. As an admin, when someone uses emotional language like that, I am inclined to give the offending user more benefit of the doubt rather than less, just to make sure I'm being as fair as possible to them. I understand that you are offended by what was said, but when dealing with that kind of behavior or asking an admin for help, just stick to the facts and don't attack back. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The warning wasn't rightly addressed, since I didn't issue a personal attack. In fact a Christal ball was used in the article that the Ukraine government murdered hundreds of innocent foreign civillians. Speaking about insensible, how do you think victims will be hurt when they read that Wikipedia is tolerating that? It was unsourced too. So let no-one play the hurt one here. That's not fair. Ophedi (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The warning was issued because of your section heading "What's wrong with you?", and telling a user he/she wasn't sensible. The discussion of what's true and what's speculation had nothing to do with it. Talk about the edits and the information in them, not about the user who made them. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a question on why he did what he did, I didn't attack him personally, and that is good. Please look better before you attack people that are concerned for quality. Ophedi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is "What's wrong with you?" not an attack? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insensitive? I gave a link as well, to his christal ball statement that the Ukraine government murdered hundreds of innocent foreign civillians. One cannot place such war propaganda on Wikipedia. Are you in for quality, or don't you care?Ophedi (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to dispute the content of edits, but you are required to be civil about it. You could have simply requested a source when you reverted the edit. That would have been very reasonable. Instead, you indicated that something must be wrong with the editor for adding the information. That is not acceptable. I don't know how much clearer I can make it, but if you continue criticizing editors instead of discussing the content of edits, as you have done with TDKR Chicago 101 and with me (by asking if I am insensitive), you may find yourself blocked. That behavior is akin to cyberbullying, and we don't tolerate that here. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questions can never be banned with a block, questions should be answered, however painfull it may feel when failures in articles are disclosed by them. I didn't see any concern for quality either, only a threat to block me if I question further. I may not even know if you are in for quality or if you don't care. Threatening me with a block is what I get for an answer. Ophedi (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
War propaganda, accidentally or not, should be banned from simple Wikipedia, that's the last thing - I hope - I have to say here. Ophedi (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Rosa del desierto's talk page.
Message added Rosa del desierto (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Rosa del desierto (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State governors of the United States

Hey Auntof6, how can I add that template that shows all of the US states that are missing the category "Category:Governors of..." so that I can added it to this category. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a cool template, isn't it? The template is {{US states missing}}. If you'd like me to add it for you, let me know. If you want to, then look at other places that use it and see what the syntax is. When I get through with what I'm doing, I'll write some documentation for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Violetta episodes

Hi Auntof6. I tagged the article List of Violetta episodes for QD:A3 based on it being a direct copy-paste of an enwiki article with little or no change. A considerable part of that decision was that much of the article was not in Simple English. In your edit comment you wrote "decline qd -- it may be a direct copy, but there's nothing in it complex enough to warrant deleting." QD:A3 states: "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change." Here the emphasis is on the fact it was copy-pasted (which is plagiarism as well as copyright infringement). We don't seem to be hitting on this point very consistently.

A QD:A3 notification is an opportunity to inform new editors at the onset that not only must we simplify articles from other wikis (including translation of words in other languages), we also need to attribute them. You've made this point yourself on many occasions. We use the word complex to describe text in English (and sentence structure) not suitable to the reading level or comprehension of our readership. In fact, this article contains a list of 80 titles in Spanish that are untranslated. Of what value is an article containing a long list of Spanish titles on Simple English Wikipedia? How does it help those new to English or younger readers? Probably the most telling indication is that, when I load this particular article in my browser, it keeps offering to translate it into English (no doubt due to the high percentage of Spanish language words). As written, I think this is an obviously inappropriate page for our wiki. I also think it falls directly within the A3 criteria—if we consider it is both unsimplified and is a copyright violation. I made the appropriate warning to the editor {{subst:uw-encopypaste|Name of article}} but this decision renders the warning completely moot. We're sending an inconsistent message to those guilty of copy-pasting articles from other wikis with no changes and no attribution. Would you be willing to take a second look at this? I would really appreciate it. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it again. I will address the points you make:
  • WP:QD#A3 is about simplifying, not attribution. I agree that the wording could be clearer. The purpose of this option is to keep us from getting copied text that isn't simple. In other words, the text that ends up here should be in the language of this Wiki, and that language is Simple English. If the original text is simple enough, there's no reason to change it just to make it different from the original.
  • As for attribution, Wikipedia in general allows direct copy-pasting from other Wikipedias as long as there is attribution, so the issue is giving attribution, not copy-pasting. Transwikied articles need attribution whether or not they are changed from the original, so this is a separate issue from simplifying. I see that this was discussed in the past at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Modification to criterion A3, and one editor pointed out that unattributed copied articles could qualify for WP:QD#G12 (copyright violation). We typically use that option for things copied from non-Wiki websites, but the issue is the same.
  • The Spanish titles don't need to be translated. If the name of something is in another language, we don't translate that (although we might transliterate it). Leaving titles in the original language doesn't constitute grounds for WP:QD#A5 (the "not written in English" provision). A5 only applies if the text of the article is in another language.
  • As for warning the user about copying and pasting the article, nothing in that warning says that the article would be deleted so I think you're OK there. Maybe you could wait until articles are actually deleted before giving that kind of warning. Remember that placing a QD tag is just a request, not a guarantee that an article will be deleted. It could also happen that a QD request is contested and the article is kept because of that.
I know that probably isn't what you wanted to hear, but I hope it's at least somewhat helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's helpful. I was aware of most of these points. For example, I knew QD:A5 was inappropriate because it says articles, not sections. And, I meant untransliterated instead of untranslated. But I still maintain this list of 80 (untransliterated) titles in Spanish has little if any value on this wiki. And that's the bulk of the article. But the wording of QD:A3 seems clear enough. It essentially says don't copy and paste articles or sections without changing—which we understand as simplifying. I understand that copying and pasting articles from other wikis here, with appropriate changes, is perfectly acceptable. I see such articles on a daily basis. The point regarding articles like this one is that, even though the copied text might have been acceptable, there were no changes. It also left two unsupported templates and three unsupported categories to be cleaned up.
As for attribution, I know you encourage other editors to provide transwiki attribution. But a large percentage of new articles here, copy pasted from other wikis, are not attributed. If QD:A3 is not about attribution, don't you think it should be? It either is or it isn't a legal requirement when copying articles and sections from other wikis. We both know it is, but you wouldn't know it by the number of editors who ignore it. Copying other articles and attribution are intrinsically connected. So if the wording of QD:A3 needs changing, I'd vote to add attribution. I wouldn't think anyone would be happy with our current level of compliance. Anyway, I just thought I'd ask. It helps me feel out the current thinking on cases like this one. If you would, give some thought to ways we could make a stronger connection between QD:A3 and attribution. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what transliteration is. It means to change words from one script to another, not one language to another. For example, to change something written in Chinese or Arabic characters to Latin characters (which is the script used by English), but without translating. For example, 恭喜發財 could be transliterated as "kung hei fat choy": that changes the script to one that can be understood and pronounced by people who know English, but does not translate the term. For the Violetta articles, Spanish already uses the Latin script, so transliteration doesn't come into it. I assumed you thought the article should say, for example, "A new love, a song", instead of "Un nuevo amor, una canción": that is translation, not transliteration, and I don't think that should be done when it is the title of something. We could certainly include an English translation in addition to the Spanish title, but not in place of it.
Each of our QD options is for one specific issue. We should not have any that cover more than one. If we had a option that addressed simplifying plus attribution, that wouldn't allow for quick deletion where only one of those was involved. What I think we need to do with A3 is clarify that it is only about simplifying. A3 was not meant to require change to an article just for the sake of making it different, just to be sure it was appropriately simple.
So no, I don't think A3 should be about attribution in addition to simplifying, but maybe we could have a new option for articles that don't have attribution, if we feel that A5 doesn't cover it. I suspect an objection to that would be that it would discourage editors from creating articles. The counter would be that we should be discouraging editors from breaking copyright law.
As for the redlinked templates and categories, I don't think those issues are severe enough by themselves to make deletion needed.
After saying all that, I would agree that the list of Violetta episodes is not of much value, especially since we don't have the main article any more to establish any notability, or at least context. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you didn't intend to do so but things like a paragraph on the mistaken use of a word tends to put other editors off. I do agree with the last sentence, and it was what I had intended to say. I just didn't express myself clearly. I understand each of the QD options is for a single specific issue. However nothing says that has to be expressed in a single word. The phrase "Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change" is a single concept, a single condition, a single criterion. Certainly, you can seek consensus to change it to "simplified" if you like. But as it is worded currently it is not at all ambiguous. It would be like saying plagiarism is about two concepts; that of copying someone else's published work and that of not giving any credit for doing so (in academia we simply call it intellectual dishonesty). I simply maintain that it is a single criterion the same as A3 is. But, the topic here has been asked and answered. You've told me how you see it, I've told you what I think. It's only an QD request after all. There's always the slow lane to deal with problematic and/or substandard articles. I also agree with your last statement regarding the quality of the article. I especially liked your suggestion of a new QD option if A5 is not seen to cover a lack of attribution. I suppose we need a few test cases to find out. We do agree on some things here. Perhaps that's a good place to leave this. Thanks for your time. Rus793 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need help on three articles

I need help on Gay pride, Lesbian feminism and Gay liberation. I've tried simplifying/taking complex words from all articles except for Gay pride. Could you tell me what the complex words are? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help identify the complex words? Before simplifying, I've gotta know what complex words exist in these articles. Angela Maureen (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Angela, if you're asking for help from people in general and not me specifically, my talk page is not the place to ask. I am reluctant to help you with this, because the last time I was working with you, I put a lot of time into it only to have you say you didn't think we were "getting anywhere". I will put some specific information on the talk pages of the articles I moved to your userspace only if you will promise not to make that kind of comment again. If you get to the point where you don't think I'm giving you the kind of help you want, you can certainly ignore it or ask others for help. I'd have no problem with that, but you can do that without implying that the help already given wasn't worth it. What do you say? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I promise never again to make that comment. I apologize for making that comment. Trust me. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did some simplifying and reorganizing for these three articles. Did some sentence changes, too. Are they closer to being simple? I just got done reorganizing each of the three articles here. Any more I should do for them? Angela Maureen (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on the talk pages of each of the articles. Please keep the discussions there instead of here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Canada

Thanks for your help! Right now I'm just concentrating on starting the articles. Eventually I hope to get a few up to good/very good article status. 184.2.99.185 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

help please

Hello, please help me with this article. Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez. Asoonfris (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of help do you want with it? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Content and Creating Pages

Hi there.

I don't often add content or create pages on Wikipedia but here, I would like to try to. A few questions though.

1. Is copying from the English Wikipedia allowed when adding content or creating pages?

2. Where can I find the Simple English Wikipedia's policy for creating pages?

3. Anything else I should know?

Cheers. A2 16:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions:
  1. It is allowed. When you do that, there are two important things to do. First, give attribution: that is a legal requirement. Second, make sure the text, templates, categories, etc. are appropriate for here. The text should be in simple language. We don't have all the same templates and categories as English Wikipedia, and we don't necessarily want the same ones. See Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia for more info on that.
  2. I'm not sure what kind of policy you mean. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages might be helpful, and has some other helpful links in the related pages section.
  3. You might want to work on the article in your userspace until it's ready to be its own article. If you do that, I'd be glad to help you while you're working on it if you want.
I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I am actually in the middle of trying to work out a few things out regarding the tennis pages on this site, and while by your description the categories were eligible for deletion, I don't understand the reasons why it was necessary to do so, a quick look at the page 2014 WTA Tour could have been a signal of the long term use. YellowStahh (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you create a category, there should already be at least three entries ready to go into it. That is explained at Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category?. In this case, part of whsy I saw was a series of nested categories with the only article in the bottom one -- we specifically try to avoid that.
Keep in mind that we don't have and don't need the same category structure as English Wikipedia. We keep the structure as simple as possible to fit what we have here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand that and I'm not trying to create the same category structure the English Wikipedia has, but with the 2014 WTA Tour category as an example, I guess I was expecting the page it was on would be an indication of how many pages would be in that category, if that makes any sense. YellowStahh (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Ejaculatory editing perhaps?

Hi there, I hope you can help me with some editing I would like to do.

Following a personal enquiry about medical conditions I was rather dismayed at the diverse quality of Wiki information, across languages, on the subject of Ejaculation (plus a number of other associated topics). The main English site is fine in most respects though the images continue to be a problem and were a subject of great debate a few years ago.

My review of these historical discussions has caused me to be both pleased and disappointed in equal measure. Pleased that the policy of no censorship on Wiki was upheld but dismayed at the self-censorship that has resulted on some pages. Understanding the issues with some of the associated Wiki Commons images, especially physiologically accurate ones, seemed an important start before editing any article on sexual function. In particular the array of disparate, often tenuously associated, images that some locations feel is adequate, is particularly disturbing. I decided to be bold as Wiki Editing Policy asserts but seem to have fallen foul of a few well-meaning Wiki Editors who have swooped in to change my edits. On a few of the more obscure language sites, where the information was almost non-existent I have simply shrugged but I feel the philosophy of Simple English is too important to get it wrong. I have written a great deal during my 30 year professional career of Occupational Health, often for people who are not experts or very literate so I am sure I can make some useful improvements, though I fully understand language is a funny old business and whatever one says may not suit everyone. The one issue is for sure, better quality, more appropriate images seem to me to be essential. I recall my days as a teenager when sex education and other related information about growing up, was skirted over or put into such obscure scientific language it meant nothing to me or my friends. Access to Wiki would have been a wonderful resource back in my school days especially for info on some of the more embarrassing bodily functions that teenage lads obsess and worry over, just as much as girls do over their changes.

Now I've got that out of the way I only really have a few questions:

Can I ask how contributors on such a sensitive subject may react to big edits?

How would you suggest I approach the edits? Get on and do them in one go, in stages or via you for copy editing before saving the changes?

I don't intend to edit it all at once due to time pressures but over a few days or a week.

My name is Paul, by the way. I live in London, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBearLovesPanda (talkcontribs) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to work in your userspace. You can ask at Wikipedia:Simple talk for other editors to review your work. Keep in mind the following:
  • This is Simple English Wikipedia. Our target audience is people with limited English skills. That could be people whose first language is not English, children, people with learning disabilities, etc. The language used in articles should be simple so that all those people can understand it. That means simple words, and simple sentence structure. A lot of what you added to Masturbation is too complex, both the vocabulary and the sentence structure. You might find your changes removed for that reason. The language here should also be straightforward: you used some slang, which is probably not a good idea. You can learn about writing for this Wikipedia at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages.
  • Besides using simple language, we try to give just basic information on most topics. Some of the text you added to Masturbation is not directly to the point. For example, you added some description of genital anatomy that wasn't necessary. To understand the topic, you need to understand the anatomy, but that doesn't mean the anatomy needs to be explained in that article. You could link to the articles on the various parts of the anatomy and readers can look at those articles to get more information.
  • When it comes to sexual topics, especially when images are included, we probably get more objections here than on English Wikipedia. That is because some people think of this project as being for children. However, it is not specifically for children, and as long as an article is about a legitimate topic and is intended to be educational, it is not censored. You might also want to read en:Wikipedia:Offensive material for related information. Those two links are to English Wikipedia, but we use their policies and guidelines when we don't have our own here.
I hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about my adds to the masturbation page though in defence I was trying to maintain the tone of the article as it read before my edit. Indeed, the later section Masturbation frequency, age and sex uses very scientific language and unless you have a high literacy level it is hard to understand. I think I only used one alternative word, clit, which, in the UK, isn't really slang (i.e. words that are usually insulting or vulgar), but in this case it's an informal abbreviated term for the proper medical one. I double checked to make sure and referenced it here. It wouldn't be an issue changing it but that does tend to make it less simple and more scientific. It's a pity we don't have polite, sensible terms for our intimate body parts like hands and feet as it would make it a lot easier. I take your point about parental worries over what the kids might see on Wiki and Wiki SE in particular. I think it's bonkers, and totally irrational, to be honest, when there's so much dreadful stuff a click away on google. Oh to be a 21st century parent! I think Wiki is an easy target for people, especially overly worried mums and dads, to vent their anger and frustrations but I agree there is no point waving a red rag at a bull so I will do my utmost to not to do so.
Being a Brit I read 'Simple English' as 'Plain English', the term we use in the UK for cutting out jargon and over complicated language rather than making the words very basic or childlike. I now realise it is more of the 'basic' and less of the 'plain' that is needed, which is a big challenge. I used to volunteer teach English to illiterate adults about 10 years ago and I know where Wiki Simple is coming from though Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages does recognise it is difficult with science topics but I will do my best. As you may have gathered I can write lots so I'll have to be extra strict with myself. many thanks for you advice and feedback. --BigBearLovesPanda (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you say about maintaining the tone of the article. In this case, though, the existing article wasn't very simple to begin with. Unfortunately, a lot of our articles are more complex than they should be.
I do think the full word "clitoris" should be used. Remember that our audience may not understand that words sometimes get shortened in English. You Brits do that a lot more than we Americans, although it's even worse in Australia! It's better if readers don't have to figure out that the two words mean the same thing.
I am going to revert the changes you made to Masturbation, because they added quite a bit of complex language. The text you added will not be lost, because it will be retrievable from the page's history. If you want, you can retrieve it to work on in your userspace. Let me know if you would like help setting that up. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Is it ok now? simple:Category:Cypriot football clubs. Can you please check Nea Salamis Famagusta FC and Alki Larnaca F.C.? Are my first articles in your wiki and I want to know if I am correct. Xaris333 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Style......

Did a page for it but I personally think it is quite bad[Haha]. Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Simplegoose (talkcontribs) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs) 21:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Adam Weishaupt

Thanks for sending me that messinge and THANK YOU!!! for removing my Johann Adam Weishaupt page. I understand I need to make it very simple and easyir for you simple english wikipedians not like us origninal wikipedians like Esoteric Enlightmeant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric Enlightmeant (talkcontribs) 14:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after Ronald Reagan

Do you think it's a good idea to create this article -> List of things named after Ronald Reagan? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd rather see it as a list than have a category for those things. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering creating the article. Do I copy it from the Wikipedia make some few adjustments and add attribution to talk page? What would you recommend? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's pretty much it. The most common adjustments needed are simplifying language, adjusting for difference in categories, and either removing or creating templates used that we don't have here. Haven't you based articles on enwiki articles before? You might want to read Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia for more information. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hello, please help me with this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoonfris (talkcontribs) 01:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama update tag

Hey, Auntof6, thanks for your edits at the DYK, but I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add template:Update tag to Barack Obama because there can be some updating such as his presidency section. Nothing about 2014 has been added, so is it appropriate? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could add it, but I probably wouldn't. I use the update tag when there is something in the article that was true or accurate when it was written, but no longer is. For example, when Obama's current term is over, it would need updating so it doesn't say he is president. (Of course, in that example, I hope someone would take a minute to just change the text rather than place a tag.)
This touches on something I've been trying to get across to people. Whenever possible, word articles so that they don't go out of date to begin with. There are several ways to do that (including one that will automatically change the text after a certain date!), and I can give you more on that if you're interested. I'm not saying I've seen issues with the way you have worded things, I'm just taking the opportunity to mention this. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages

Hello.

I created User:Umafiy/Jason Momoa. It's a draft. It is also copied. What else does the draft need before being moved into article space? Umafiy (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest:
  • Remove the "other websites" section, because has only a sample link.
  • Remove the dates next to the movie and TV series names and the character name. They just make the text look cluttered.
  • Add appropriate categories and a defaultsort.
Then just remember to remove the user draft tag and the workpages category before moving. Also be sure not to leave a redirect behind when the article is moved. If the software doesn't let you do that, you can ask an admin (like me) to move it for you.
Thanks for the article! --Auntof6 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Check it over? Umafiy (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you didn't do the 2nd and 3rd things I listed? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did the second thing. I'll do it now. What is defaultsort? Thanks for deleting the extra cat I created! --Umafiy (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A defaultsort makes the article appear in the right order in categories. It goes on a line right before the categories. For this article, it would look like this:
{{DEFAULTSORT:Momoa, Jason}}
You also need to put categories on the article. Do you understand how categories work well enough to figure out the right ones? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Check it over? Umafiy (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I added one category. I'll move it to articlespace now. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! How many articles have to be created for patroller? Umafiy (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific number of articles you have to create to get the patroller right. It's more a matter of earning the trust of the community. That takes time, although there is no specific minimum amount of time.
The patroller right gives you two things: 1) your articles don't need to be patrolled, and 2) you can mark other people's articles as patrolled. Before giving the right, we usually want to see that you understand what we expect here so that we feel confident that articles you create will be good. We also want to see that you can recognize vandalism and other issues in other people's articles. You can show all that in several ways: create good articles on your own, do appropriate anti-vandalism work, and just generally be a regular constructive contributor here. Don't focus on getting the right. In my experience, people who focus on getting rights instead of making good contributions often don't get the right. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for confirm

Hi.

My account use twinkle and it is really frustrating going through the captcha process. I would appreciate if my account could become confirmed for the next few days. Thanks. Umafiy (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will be auto-confirmed soon. I think it's automatic if you have made at least 10 edits and your account is at least 4 days old. You have more than enough edits, and there is less than a day until your account is 4 days old. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing World of Gumball

Hey Auntof6, there's a continuing case of vandalism at The Amazing World of Gumball. It's not just one, but many unregistered users are adding non-notable or just rubbish trivia and notes on the article. I keep reverting them, but what's the use, they keep on going. Some of them just dead on doesn't make sense. Plus check the history, there has been more cases of vandalism being reverted by other users, so I'm not the only one. What should I do? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see more than a few edits on any one day. That's not enough to protect the page. As for the edits where trivia sections are being added, I wouldn't call that vandalism although trivia sections are discouraged. Have you tried leaving messages for the editors explaining what's wrong with their edits? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

New vandalism from an IP editor. Check recent changes! Umafiy (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out which user I think you meant, but you need to be more specific when reporting vandalism. Don't make the admins figure it out. At least mention a page that was vandalized so we have something to go on. Also, the place to report vandalism is at WP:VIP. That page gives a format for the report that helps admins find the information they need. After you report there, you can leave messages on admins' talk pages if you think it's needed. If you report only on an admin's talk page, that admin might sign off before they see it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K thanks. What are the requirements for rollback here on the Simple English Wikipedia? I figure that rollback could help me revert edits faster here. Umafiy (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only specific requirement is listed at WP:RFP#Rollbacker. In addition to that, though, rights are given only to trusted users. For us to feel you can be trusted with rollback, you need to establish a track record that shows you understand how things work here. That takes time. The amount of time depends on how many edits you make and what the edits are. To give a specific example, the edits where you added sports league categories to articles about sports teams were not appropriate for here. I explained that to you, and you probably understand that now. However, there are quite a few other things we do differently here and it takes time to get a feel for them. I've seen some cases where an edit made in accordance with our standard practices was reverted because a new user thought it was vandalism.
The best advice I can give is to stop thinking about getting rights, and just do good work here for a while. When I see someone asking for rights when they've only been working here for a few days, it doesn't make a good impression. As admins, when we see someone apparently engaged in what we call "hat collecting", we're less likely to grant any rights. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Page Protection on my Userpage

Hi!

Can you protect my userpage so only autoconfirmed users can edit it? I was vandalized once and don't want it to happen again. Thanks. FuzzyDiceTalk 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to mention that despite being "a one-sentence statement about a geographical place. A stub, certainly, and needs cleanup, but definitely has content" we set a precedent some years ago to delete one-sentence "sub-stubs" on places as they are not helpful. Of course, the article can be expanded (and I see you have done so), but QD A2 is specifically "Little or no content", rather than no content at all (As I'm sure you know). Just suggesting why I tagged the article. Thanks, Goblin 23:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

If that precedent was set, it was before I was an admin, and I don't remember seeing it used for cases like this. I've definitely seen this kind of thing discouraged, but not usually deleted.
I didn't expand the article, I just categorized and wikified it.
"Little or no content" is not the full definition of WP:QD#A2: it is just a shorthand way of referring to it. A2 is defined as being for "any article consisting only of links (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title". Those are all things that don't tell you anything about the subject. This article had none of the things listed and did have the most important fact about the subject -- that it is a district in India. Therefore, I don't see that it applies to this article. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hold my hands up here - seems my memory was playing tricks on me, and I should double checked what happened prior to relying on what I thought I remembered. In 2010/1 we deleted many hundreds of one-line sub-stubs of varying topics, and I thought that this had included a large amount of geo-stubs. Turns out that those got nominated but were just kept. Entirely my mistake, so please accept my apologies on that one. Thanks, Goblin 00:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]

Regarding Peterfen's block

It appears that User:NerdMary and User:Peterfen both share the same PC. Apparently, Peterfen was not logged out when NerdMary came and started to edit which resulted in this misunderstanding. NerdMary came to #wikipedia-simple channel on IRC and informed us about this and I've unblocked Peterfen. Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea

There has been talks of the Republic of Crimea to be merged with Crimea since April 2014. Should I remove it since no one has discussed it and it's pointless because they are both a very different things. Crimea is a peninsula and the Republic of Crime is a disputed Russian republic. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They don't look to me like they should be merged. Just make sure the categories reflect the right things. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page Big Brother TV Series

Hi Auntof6,

I noticed you undid the removal of red links on this paging noting "undo removal of red links -- we keep them"

There is a tag located on the page itself that states "This article may have too many red links. (April 2012)" [[1]]

Has the policy here changed since April of 2012?

Thanks for your time.

Carriearchdale (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note on your talk page. Please read and reply there if it doesn't answer your question. --Auntof6 (talk)