User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2016

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Something about citation template

Hey. Could you tell me what Neptunia is talking about here? Is it still an issue? I looked at the article and couldn't see anything wrong, so I'm assuming it got fixed? Osiris (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh never mind, I see that Chen got to it. Osiris (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Auntof6, thanks, I got your message on the deleted review page, and shall write on the respective talk pages of these articles in question. Regards Hamneto (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Hamneto

Thank you.

I appreciate your advice on how to edit better here. Thank you so much. Lithorien (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with template questions

Hi Aunt. Could you take a look at the conversations at User talk:TheGoldenRatio? Specifically the request to bring over two templates. I've brought over some simple templates before, but these two, especially the second one, seem more involved. Secondly, are they needed here? It seems literal translations of anything would still need simplifying. I suggested a very similar template but the editor doesn't like it. The other is involving direct quotes (as I understand it) which an editor should be able quote just as well without it. Should we just bring them over? Are there other alternatives? You can either answer me here or join in the conversation to help out. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Long overdue, I want you to know that all of your efforts, day in and day out, both with and without the mop, are appreciated! Personally, I think we should double your pay! ;) Etamni | ✉   05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Etamni! At another volunteer job I had, I used to joke about wanting a 20% raise, until one of the other volunteers got upset because she thought I was getting paid. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! Hopefully, nobody will get the wrong idea here. I've also been a volunteer in a real-world organization; doubling of pay was a common inside-joke that occasionally caught newcomers off guard. Eventually they got it! Etamni | ✉   06:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

removing Category:Fashion from certain articles

A while back, Category:Fashion was removed from Lingerie. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the fashion category, through the underwear and clothing categories. Having it in two levels of the same branch is considered over-categorization. If you're interested, you can read about this at Wikipedia:Categories#Choosing the correct category. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Galloping Gertie

Hi, well this makes a rather humorous section title ;) Thanks to you, I discovered that we had the article Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) on one of my favourite subjects. I am inquiring about the category your recently created in which Gertie now lives: "Pages using Infobox bridge with extra". Is this an error category in which I should be removing the parameter for extra? Or are you just gathering these together for study? Happy editing, Fylbecatulous talk 15:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not an error category, and you don't have to do anything. Somebody in the past decided that we needed to know where the "extra" parameter was used, so the template adds this category. It's the same on enwiki, where there are hundreds of articles in the category. There are similar categories for other templates/parameters.
I try to minimize the number of redlinked categories we have, so I created this category, which already had the articles in it. (I'll eventually get round to the other redlinked cats there are. I do a few at a time. There were over 2,000 of them when I started; lately it has been fewer than 100 most of the time.) The other options would have been to remove the use of the parameter from the articles, remove the parameter from the template, or remove the category from the template. Creating the category seemed best in this case, but I might have done it differently in a different case. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Well I would offer to create some on the Wanted Categories page, but I have a learning deficit in what parent categories maintenance categories go in. I tried one once and missed. Carry on. Thanks again. Fylbecatulous talk 16:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's tricky with the maintenance categories especially. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of redirect

I'm not sure why you removed the redirect from the edit notice talk page. The intent was so that if anyone decided to comment on the edit notice, their comment would go to my normal talk page, instead of to a separate talk page for the edit notice. Etamni | ✉   08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just about to explain. People normally wouldn't comment on the edit notice. The redirect was making the entire regular talk page show up as the edit notice for your regular talk page. That made it hard to edit. The edit notice for a user talk page is a subpage of the user talk page but isn't designed to be used as a talk page itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I was clear: the page I changed is the edit notice for your user talk page. It isn't used as the talk page for your user page's edit notice. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, if it was causing a problem, that's fine. For the record, the page changed was User talk:Etamni/Editnotice. I got to that page by clicking the "talk" tab when I was on User:Etamni/Editnotice. I've just tested what you said and I see that the page does also serve as the edit notice for the talk page. (There isn't much traffic on my talk page, so I hadn't noticed that effect of adding the redirect). Etamni | ✉   08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Even though the page is in user talk space, it isn't a talk page. It isn't "also" the edit notice: its purpose is to be the edit notice. It's just confusing because we expect everything in a talk space to be a talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
LOL. Yes, or in this case, we expect that the page we go to when we click the "talk" tab of a page will be that page's talk page. I guess the more pertinent question would be to ask if you were there to make some other comment or ask some other question, and got distracted by the edit notice, or were you just out for a virtual walk when you found the page? :) Etamni | ✉   21:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the reminder -- I was there for something else and got distracted. See your talk page for details. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you ever sleep? Etamni | ✉   00:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

List of fruits

Unlike En, we decided not to use the botanical definition, but the definition used in everyday conversation. It says that in the intro. Many things which are botanical fruits are called vegetables in everyday life. Both lists we set up on that basis. Now, I know better than most what a botanical fruit is, but if we use that as the yardstick the list will not be generally understood.

All the same, we have recently had numerous changes to the content by readers who do not read the introduction. It is a good case for protection, since different editors have been making unjustified changes. They are unjustified because they make the changes without explanation or comment, and presumably do not read the introduction. I think lists which are changed without explanation are prime candidates for protection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Could you put a link on the talk page to where that decision was made, so we have something to point to when this comes up? Maybe the explanation could be tweaked: I'll give that a shot. As far as protecting, I don't think that's warranted if the changes are made in good faith. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:St. Louis Rams

So people can move category pages now? Do the original titles get left as redirects, or do they get deleted? Has something changed since I left? The category has one entry, which I was going to re-categorise, but could you look at it and see what needs to be done? Feel free to re-delete. Osiris (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that did happen while you were inactive. If a non-admin does it, a redirect gets left behind (because non-admins can't delete pages). If an admin does it, there's a checkbox to say whether to leave the redirect.
I'm not sure of the practice on categories for teams that have moved or changed their names. I think I've seen everything under the new name, but I don't know if that's policy. I changed the St. Louis category to a redirect and moved everything to the LA category. That should work for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Osiris (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Need a second opinion at User talk:Gaynihgga14

So sorry to bother you, but can you help me out at [1]? I am going offline soon, and also would like a second opinion so that I don't accidentally start off a revert war. Chenzw  Talk  17:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah never mind, I see that Only has done it here. Chenzw  Talk  17:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I need a second opinion about this: I'm close to indefinitely blocking ipadguy. He's indefinitely blocked on the English version for vandalism and sock puppetry. Right now, he's beginning to exhaust our patiences so a reciprocal ban might need to come into play. Almost every active admin has seemed to have had to tell him to stop doing some particular behavior or other over the last week or two and all we get met with is "read". Any thoughts? Only (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Taking his experience on EN into consideration, his repeated not assuming good faith (when edits were made with good intentions), assuming too much good faith (when edits were obviously made with bad intentions), and general unwillingness to engage in conversation (unanswered questions on his talk page) is probably enough for a reciprocal block as well as per en:WP:NOTHERE. Chenzw  Talk  17:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sorry for not seeing this sooner. I wanted to finish fixing Ipadguy's overcategorization before checking my talk page. I have no experience with doing reciprocal blocks: are there specific criteria for them, or is it administrator discretion? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Rams

Why did you remove the Los Angeles, California category from this page? They (soon) will be based out of Los Angeles, California. //nepaxt 18:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs some work anyway, if for no other reason that the original history in Cleveland is entirely absent. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed it because it's already in that category through the category for the team. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thank you! //nepaxt 20:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ipadguy

Dear Auntof6, could you take a look at Ipadguy's recent edits please? He is making silly threats on a school kid's talk page, and has now started attacking me for commenting on it. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Auntof6, You know that I have a reason for this, and its because it was a useless page and "94.12.81.251" was denying it. Ipadguy (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If either if you wants me to look at something here, you need to be more specific. What user do you mean by "a school kid"? What page do you think is "useless"? Give me specifics, such as page names and diffs, or I can't check anything. And @Ipadguy: do not remove anything from my talk page again. You have shown that you cannot tell what is vandalism and what isn't. If there is vandalism here, let another editor take care of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the "A Mega Amount of History" page that was obviously connected with school homework. Not useful, but not vandalism either. Ipadguy gave the kid a final warning like he was a massive vandal, and probably scared him off. I kinda regret walking into this now. Only came for a look and noticed Alcide de Gasperi was a red link, which I fixed. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that the page was deleted with vandalism as the reason. Ipadguy (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes a page qualifies for quick deletion, but for a different reason than the request specifies. When that happens, sometimes the admin forgets to change the reason when deleting the page. @Eptalon: I don't see any vandalism in the article, so would you please clarify? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker) Auntof6, the page that Ipadguy is talking about was the page A Mega Amount of History which was QD'd. The IP is referring to the talk page of LeoHicks10, specifically (if I am reading him right) this diff, as well as his own talk page. Just for the history of this mess. --Lithorien (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I am also involved. I had placed 'wait' on the article page and typed my reasons on the talk page which is now in the tray to be deleted. (Talk:A Mega Amount of History). It was clearly not vandalism (just a bit rough around the edges but the writing made sense and had meaning). and I suggested redirecting to our article on Ancient history. But I was too late, so I have blanked my request on the talk page. The school child did not mean vandalism (please look since you can see deleted content) and this is all just more noise here. (Sorry) Fylbecatulous talk 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk page also deleted. Ipadguy (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Ipadguy just put back the series of invalid warning messages he had left on my talk page. For someone who seems to make a point of blanking anything left on his own page, that is inconsistent as well as rude. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That is incorrect, they are valid. Ipadguy (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No, they were for reverting your efforts to blank my message on this page, which you should not have done. Please stop. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
They were valid. Ipadguy (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello all, I have undone my quick deletion, and made it a regular RfD. If the page is not deleted, it needs to be moved somewhere else, because its current title does not fit well; the RfD is here.--Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"group" not specific enough

For what reason is group not specific enough? Angela Maureen (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jade (American group) for example. Angela Maureen (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The word group is a general word that just means more than one of something. If it's a musical group, we should specify that. I used "band" because it"s shorter than "musical group". --~~ ~

Editing articles by new users

Hi again. So I had a question about how to not be bite-y about editing new users' articles. Namely, when I see an article that looks to be a good faith effort but is very misleading/incorrect/etc, what's the best way to solve the issue without treading all over someone else's hard work? I don't want to just jump in and go, "Oh, let me tear apart your article," but I'm not sure how to introduce edits that don't feel like that to new editors. (Yes, I know, I'm a new editor too - but I'm sure you know what I mean.) Would you happen to have any particular advice on that? Thank you, --Lithorien (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very good at that myself, but I'll try. You could try to be sure they aren't still working on the article before changing it. You could do that by waiting for some time to pass without any edits on the page, or you could leave a message on their talk page asking if they're still working on it. You can suggest they work in a sandbox until the article is ready for publishing.
I'm probably less tolerant about that kind of thing, because I'm of the school of thought that articles should be in good shape from the beginning. The reason for that is the effect on our readers.
  • They might realize that an article is in bad shape and get a bad impression of our site. They wouldn't know why it's in bad shape, or whether we consider it acceptable.
  • They might not realize that it's in bad shape, think that it's in good English, and either learn incorrect grammar or just plain not be able to understand it.
Readers don't know if an article is still being developed, has been vandalized, or is just poorly written. Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Lithorien: On EnWiki I have applied a {{disputed}} tag to information I know to be wrong. Then I check again in a few days; if the error has not been fixed, I fix it and add sources supporting the fix. (This is only for articles being actively edited -- I would just fix those that are more inactive.) What I hate is running into someone who thinks they own an article or list and who won't let anyone else fix problems. Had that happen on EnWiki recently: apparently his airline source is more authoritative about a particular government's visa laws than that government's own embassy and the US State Department. *sigh* Etamni | ✉   07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. Auntof6, I will try to ping the author before I just charge in. That makes sense. And Etamni, I will definitely step back and give them tine to work on it and just tag it at first. If they don't fix it, then I'll step in to correct. Good advice, definitely. --Lithorien (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Full moon

Auntof6, I agree with the early close of the RfD for Full moon but I suspect you misunderstood something about the nomination -- the page is not, and has not ever been, a redirect. I think the nominator wanted the page blanked in order to start over. The problem with that is that other than having a minimal number of sources and not being as simple as it probably should be, the article is actually in decent shape. It is unclear why the nominator mentioned a redirect but may have meant something else and was simply using the wrong term. Etamni | ✉   02:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. It is definitely a redirect. If you look here at the history of the page, you will see that the page was created as a redirect. I did notice when closing it that you had put the RfD on Phases of the Moon instead of on Full moon. Perhaps you got confused when the page redirected you to the phases page? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Got confused? Yes. But I didn't place the RfD notice; that was someone else. I was looking at the RfD notice that was on the Phases of the Moon page and had jumped over to RfD to see the nomination -- so when I saw "full moon" in the description, assumed that was the page I had been on in the first place.... *sigh* and sorry for the confusion. Etamni | ✉   03:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right: I got you mixed up with PokestarFan! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

word spawned changed to caused

Is the word caused simpler than spawned? Is that why spawned was changed? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

E-mail

How do I e-mail you? PokestarFan (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Use the "Email this user" link on the left side of my user or user talk page. Please note that I prefer to communicate on-wiki as much as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Obscured jaguar.jpg The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. PokestarFan (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

PokestarFan (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

commas after years

For what reason do you put commas after years in certain articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean in sentences like "In 2015, something happened."? It's the correct English grammar. It's an introductory phrase, and those are supposed to be separated by a comma from the rest of the sentence. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

making articles notable

I put more specific detail into Dinah Manoff to make more notable. Is there anything else? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

None of the things you added show that Manoff is notable. You mentioned that a movie she was in won Oscars, but being in an Oscar-winning movie does not make an actor notable. That's part of what we mean when we talk about notability not being inherited. If she herself won an Oscar, that would show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I added that she won a Tony Award for her acting in I Ought to be in Pictures. Would that show notability? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that would do it. I'll take the notability tag back off. You do, however, need to simplify the word stint. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

removing recent death tag

The recent death tag was removed as unneeded on several articles. Clarify the reason for that, please. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That tag is intended to be used only when an article is getting a lot of changes after its subject has died. If a person dies but their article isn't getting a lot of changes, the tag isn't needed. The documentation on the template explains more. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Desyra

I has the link and source of Desyra: https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desyra Immortality113 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia is not a valid source and cannot be used as a reference. If this is a real Greek deity, you should be able to find a reliable source. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)--Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Also, please note that the cited Wikipedia project is the Vietnamese Wikipedia, and the article was created less than 24 hours ago by this same user, with no sources cited there. Etamni | ✉   02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I put a request on Meta to have the page deleted on Vietnamese Wikipedia. //nepaxt 03:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Insubordination

I like the idea of adding to the Simple English Wiktionary, but I would also want expansion of the Simple English Wikipedia version of the Insubordination article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, feel free to expand it. Right now it's just a dicdef. I'm not in a hurry to delete it, but someone else might be. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing from Wikipedia

Hello,

I'm am an experienced (over 1000 edits, so at least not a newbie) user from the non-simple ("complicated"?) English Wikipedia. I'm not as experienced in the Simple English Wikipedia (only 40 edits or so), but I would like to start contributing more to it. I can see that this is a relatively new Wiki with few articles (compared to other projects), so I'll start by "translating" articles from the non-simple Wikipedia to here. But, is it possible for me to cite the original page as a reference? Thank you and happy editing! William2001 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy working here. It can take some time to get used to the way this Wikipedia operates, but most of us who make the effort enjoy working here.
To answer your question, no Wikipedia page can be used as an actual reference on any Wikipedia. You would, however, need to credit English Wikipedia ("enwiki") as the source of the article. (In fact, it's a legal requirement, because it's considered a copyright violation if it isn't done.) You do that by giving attribution when copying from another Wikipedia. Here are some pages that can help you with this:
A couple of other notes:
  • Articles need to have references here, even if they are attributed and the enwiki article has references.
  • If you're considering using the Content Translation tool or any other automated way of translating articles, be aware that the output of such tools almost always needs work to fix the grammar. To be used here, it also needs to be simplified, as described in the "How to copy" page linked above.
Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. It can be frustrating getting used to the way things are done here, but it's a challenge many of us enjoy. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! Instead of importing articles directly from the English Wikipedia, I have decided to start by just manually "translating" the page and typing it in here. Please let me know if I'm making any mistakes. Happy editing! William2001 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

when I become admin sooner or later

When I become admin sooner or later, how could I tell which IPs are school IPs? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how that's done. I don't think it's an admin function. I think you have to be a checkuser to do that.
When do you think you might want to try to become an admin? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
2018 at the earliest, 2022 at latest. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty specific! Why those specific dates? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I've gotta get myself used to doing vandalism reverts. I want to protect pages, too. But I need to know how. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
When you get the administrator right, you see some tabs and options that non-admins don't see. Some of them show up at the top of the page, and some show up under "Tools" on the left of the page. You also get access to more functions under special pages. I think I remember seeing some kind of tutorial pages that show exactly where those tabs are, but I don't remember where they are. If I find anything like that, I'll let you know where. In the meantime, you might like to get familiar with the policies that have to do with admin functions, such as protection, blocks and bans, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
at the bottom of an IP contribution page is a Whois link. We generally use that to help us determine who owns or operates the IP address. Only (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PokestarFan.
Message added 22:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wants to look at my RfA PokestarFan (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Notes on VIP

Sometimes I forget, maybe it happens when I see vandalism on Vandal Fighter scrolling and I do not see the report. I will check there and leave a note in the future. Thank you, M7 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Overstepping bounds

Hello again. (I seem to be on your page a lot.) Just wanted to make sure I wasn't overstepping your (or any other admin's) authority by posting comments like this. I saw your reply and realized that I may have been acting like an admin/unhelpful, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks! --Lithorien (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you said there, because you got it right and because it's not only admins who can explain the right way to do things. I added my comment to emphasize that not only is that not the way to do attribution, but that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference in any situation. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

see also vs related pages

For what particular reason do we use "Related pages" rather than "See also" like enwiki? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't here when the decision was made, but it's considered to be either simpler, clearer, or both. If you saw the phrase "see also" by itself, you might know that it was referring to something somewhere else, but it doesn't specifically say that it's for other pages here. You could say that "related pages" doesn't specifically say that, either, but it's the heading that was chosen. It's documented in our manual of style, as is the fact that we use "other websites" instead of "external links". By the way, if you've never looked at the manual of style, I recommend that you look at it. It has a lot of information about how to format articles here, and it can be interesting to read. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think "related pages" is more clear than "see also" as the "see also" sections of articles on EnWiki are often filled with external links, even though that section was intended for links to other Wikipedia pages that are not interlinked within the articles. By saying "related pages" it is more obvious that this means other pages in Wikipedia. Thus, it is simpler (even if this comment isn't!). Etamni | ✉   21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Hey Auntof6, when you're not busy, can you check if Bernie Sanders is good enough for GA promotion? List any flaws or fixing issues on the talk page so that I can, fix them. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Choosing An Article

I think this page was supposed to be for a class assignment. Could you please restore to User:Nepaxt/A so I can put it on the user's page? Thank you. //nepaxt 02:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Stand by. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

people vs resident

Is the word resident complex? Is that the reason it gets removed from articles (for example: 1995 Chicago heat wave)? That may be the reason we use people instead of resident. Angela Maureen (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right. People and person are simpler words than resident, inhabitant, and population. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Patroller

Hello again, Auntof6. I was writing to find out what you would think of my chances to get the patroller right here on Simple. I would like to be a patroller to help share the load with the current group, especially with the student project in the works, and I am asking you because you have seen more of my work than most of the administrators (at least, that I have seen). I figure you would have a rough idea of what the consensus would be if I were to try - and what the deficiencies I have preventing me from earning the right would be. You have also seen some of my work to try to help flagging articles (for example: IOS 9, combatant, etc.) Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. --Lithorien (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Simple English bot after me

How could I get an anti-vandalism bot machine named after me? What should I do? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If you mean a bot account, it can be requested at Wikipedia talk:Bots. A bot account is just like any other account, except that it has the bot flag turned on. You would need to specify exactly what you want to use it for, how you plan to use it, and you would be required to use it only for the things it was approved for. You can look at older bot requests for examples. Be aware that bot accounts are rarely approved: most things that are OK for a bot to do are already being done. For example, we already have an anti-vandalism bot, and we don't need more than one. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
for your endless admin workPokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 11:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, no comment? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 02:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page messages

Yesterday I mass archived my talk page, and in ~24 hrs it filled up again. Why? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 02:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It was because people left new messages for you. Did you expect that people wouldn't leave messages any more? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it grows so quickly. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
That's what happens when you do things that people need to leave you messages for. I see that you have set up your page for automatic archiving. I suggest you stop doing the manual archiving and let the bot do it for you. It's currently set up to archive sections that haven't been posted to in 7 days; I think that's a reasonable amount of time. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I thought the RD tag was needed for Scalia since his death was sudden and the circumstances were unknown. I know I goofed up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

RfD

Well, that was the earliest a discussion was cosed. Less than 10min. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't have nominated that page at all. It shows that you don't know how template doc pages are used. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them! It helped immensely. Thank you very much. --Lithorien TalkChanges 02:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, help me pleaseeee.

Ok I don't know if I'm just being really thickj but I was wondering if you'd be able to move the User: part from the above page I've created : User:Adelaide of Austria. I'm still slowly working on it to be honest so it's not urgent. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. However, I should tell you that I noticed that this article was created under an account with a different name than yours, but a similar one. Since that other account is indef'd and globally locked, I have requested checkuser action on your account. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Ok, thanks for moving it for me. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

RfD, help?

I tried to use TW to make an RfD for Dalitstan.org. It didn't appear to work properly, but when I use other RfDs for examples on how to fix it, I can't see anything different between them. Could you possibly help me figure out what's going wrong? Thank you, --Lithorien TalkChanges 03:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

What doesn't look right? It looks OK to me. I did have to bypass my cache to see the link in the article, and the entry on the main RfD page, but that happens sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
That was it. (The cache thing.) When I forced Firefox to refresh without using cache, everything looked correct. Thanks again! --Lithorien TalkChanges 03:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Alcoholism

Hi, I have a random question. I put a "disputed" tag on Alcoholism and a message on the talk page about 8 days ago. Nobody has responded. Do I have to wait for other people to respond if I want to remove some unsourced content, and/or remove or update outdated content? This would constitute a major revision, since several sections of the article are unsourced, and another is based on sources that are arguably outdated. I've been told before that major revisions have to be discussed on the talk page. Wondering if you can clarify? Thank you. Fuhvah (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The only people who see messages on a talk page are people who are watching the page, and they will only see it if they log in. When you want comment in cases like this, it usually helps to post at Simple talk and ask people to give feedback at the talk page in question. The other thing you could do is make the changes you want in your userspace, then ask people to comment on the result. I see that only 6 people have that page on their watchlist (I see only the number, not who they are), so it's not surprising that no one responded. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, that makes sense, thanks. I will post at Simple talk. Thank you for the quick reply and the help. Fuhvah (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I patrol newly created talk pages along with the new pages feed. But since this article had been opened with a comment in 2011, it was not a new page. I am now number 7 on the watchlist ツ Will try to comment soon, since psychology and medical articles are of interest to me and in my area of experience. (I have already placed those that are due to be edited by a school group in the near future on my watchlist. Even though I will only watch and not edit until after their March or April expiration date.) Fylbecatulous talk 17:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, also people who patrol recent changes would see changes to a talk page, but a lot of those people are only looking for vandalism and might not be interested in commenting. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders GA

Hey Auntof6! Do you think Bernie Sanders is ready for a GA promotion? There has been 4 or 5 people who voted for promote, but I was wondering if the article is ready for promotion or if there are any other issues so that I can fix it. Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

word landfall changed

Is the word landfall complex? I've seen it changed in several tropical cyclone articles. Angela Maureen (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's complex. It's a compound word made of two simple words, but the combined word is complex. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Castilleja School

Why did you delete this article? I based it on English Wikipedia's version, and it shows notability. //nepaxt 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The article as written here didn't show notability. It said what kind of school it is, what students it's for, where it is, when it was founded, and the name of the founder. None of that shows notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you move it to User:Nepaxt/A so that I can work on it, please? Thanks. //nepaxt 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your involvement in the Big Reference Weekend 2016, especially in helping to identify what needed improvement. While we only tackled the tip of the iceberg, your contribution of more than 100 edits made a major contribution Peterdownunder (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Wikipedia:Simple talk#Long-term abuse - I've requested consensus. 73.47.71.127 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Some photos won't transfer from Enwiki?

Hi Auntof6, sorry to bother you. I've been having this problem since I started using Simple Wiki and can't figure it out. Sometimes, I can copy photos from Enwiki into a Simple English article. Other times, when I try to copy a photo over it doesn't work. I paste in the code, and just get a red link. It can't be that the picture was deleted because the picture shows up on Enwiki. For example, I just created the page "African-American Civil Rights Movement" and was trying to get photos from Enwiki's "Birmingham campaign" page. I couldn't get the infobox photo or the photo of the dog attacking the kid to come over. They just show up as red links. I've gotten other infobox photos to come over so I know it's not that. Do you have any idea why this happens? Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That happens when a photo isn't in Wikimedia Commons. Some photos are on enwiki. We don't host photos here like enwiki does. To be used here, a photo has to be on Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Ohhhhhhhh. Well, thank you, I can stop banging my head against the wall thinking I screwed something up! Fuhvah (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

@Auntof6:, thank you for looking out for me. I'm still new to WP correspondence, so I hadn't seen @Peterdownunder:'s response because I didn't put his page on my watchlist. The project I was seeking out bluegoblin7 to be an ambassador for is the same one I'd asked peterdownunder about. So I've gotten back to him and will move forward with his help. I hope I can call on you in the future if I have any questions about managing student projects or editing simple english WP. Swim123blue (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Minnie Mouse

Hi, could you protect this article? In many wikis they try cancel it. It is protect for 3 months in the Wiki (en). Thanks DARIO SEVERI (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@DARIO SEVERI:I don't see a reason to protect it here. The article here hasn't been getting many edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The same editor came 9 times since 5 February to cancel it, he/she is doing the same in several wikis, but if you think it is OK, it is OK for me too ;) DARIO SEVERI (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

locals changed to people

The word locals was recently changed from that to people. Is locals complex or was it used improperly? Angela Maureen (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's complex when it's used to mean people who live in the area. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

a hello

hi --Soem49588 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

how am i doing so far? --Soem49588 (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Soem49588: Hello. I looked at some of the articles that you created, and I notice the following:
  • The ones about people do not show notability. All articles must show why their subject is notable. It isn't enough that the subject is notable, the article must show it. Articles about people (and certain other things) can be deleted if they do not show notability, so I suggest that you work on the ones you already created before you create any more. If you'd like these articles moved to your userspace so you can take your time improving them, let me know. If they are not taken care of, they could be quickly deleted.
  • Another thing I notice is that the articles you created don't have references. It's important to have reliable references in all articles.
  • Besides that, all of the articles you created need better categories. There is some basic information about categorizing articles about people at Wikipedia:Categories#Categorizing people.
I know that's probably not what you wanted to hear. Let me know if you have any questions about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Posters and details on your userpage and talk page

Hello, i am new to wikipedia and i want to add new thing sto mine. I saw your userpage and you have alot of posters and details. i am thinking how you did this. Would you mind also telling me how to did this.16chseld 408 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 16chseld 408. You can see how I did it by editing my user page. Just be sure not to change it! What kinds of things do you want on your user page? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Correcting articles

Greetings auntof6 I'm new to this wikipedia website and I would like to know how you correct people's article in an proficient way. I see that you make important changes for the article example "(removed Category:National parks in the United States using HotCat) (undo | thank) that's the reason I came to you. Can you please help me?16chseld 409 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 16chseld 409. Can you be more specific about what you would like to do? What kind of changes do you want to make here? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki mirror sites

Hi, I wasn't sure who else to ask about this. When I was creating a new page I noticed that the Enwiki page I was basing it on had passages that are identical to passages in a book. This is one of those online Google Books where it's hard to tell if the book was ever actually published or is just an online book. In the Help pages it says to make sure something is not a Wiki mirror site before you tag a page for possible copyright violation. I have no idea if online Google Books ever take content from Wikipedia. Do you think I should tag the page? I've never had this problem before and don't know what to do. Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhvah: Usually the best first place to ask is the talk page of the suspect article. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Jim.Fuhvah (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fuhvah: It's OK to ask a specific user, or ask at Simple talk. If you ask on an article talk page, it's best to say something at Simple talk so that people will see your question.
As for your question, let me first say that online books can also be copyrighted and are considered "published". Google Books itself is not a Wiki mirror site, and I would be very surprised if any of the individual books there were mirrored from Wikipedia. Your best bet is to look for a copyright notice in the specific book(s) involved. Unless you see something that says a book's content is available for use under the licenses we use here, I wouldn't directly copy text except as a brief quote. Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that is what I suspected, but wanted to make sure. I will look for a copyright notice. Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Amazingly, in this case, the book seems to have plagiarized the Wiki page. There is tiny print at the end of the Google Book preview that cites Wiki pages and all the contributors to each page, and says the info was used under the Creative Commons License. I can't believe that makes it ok to copy verbatim from a Wiki page without quotations, but whatever, now I'm glad I didn't tag the page!! Thanks again Fuhvah (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fuhvah: Actually, it's not plagiarism: that's exactly how our licenses work. Anything on Wikimedia sites can be freely used anywhere for any purpose as long as credit is given. Anyone contributing to the sites agrees to that when they create the content. That goes for articles on the Wikipedias, media on Wikimedia Commons, and everything on all the other Wikimedia sites. It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves of that now and then. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Starting Line

Hello. I don't know why you delete The Starting Line. They were well known in 2002 and one of his albums is considered "iconic" in the genre they play (pop-punk). Look about them on Google. I'm sorry for my bad english, I'm practicing. Greetings. --Blimcore (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blimcore: I deleted it because nothing in the article said why they were notable, according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Each article here needs to include something to show notability. If you read the page I linked above, it explains what is required. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Empty categories–especially, empty Babel categories

Hi, Auntof6. As you know, I'm a sysop over at Ladino Wikipedia. I'm trying to clean things up, and one of the things I'm trying to clean up is empty categories. Since I know you do a lot of category work here, I wanted to pick your brain a bit. Here are a couple of questions:

  • Are there any bots (or similar) that can do mass search and deletion of empty categories?
  • Is it worth bothering to delete empty Babel categories, especially if either a bot or a new user may recreate them in the future?
  • Does one need discussion and consensus to delete an empty category?

Many thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. Thanks for your questions. Here are my answers:
  • There's no bot I know of that finds empty categories. There is Special:UnusedCategories, which is refreshed regularly. I check all those once in a while, but rarely find any that should be deleted. We wouldn't want a bot to delete all empty categories: it's normal for some categories to be empty, including category redirects and many maintenance categories.
  • Babel categories: do you mean the ones under Category:User languages? If they're really empty, without even a template in them, I suppose we could delete them. Do you have an example of one you think could be deleted?
  • There is a quick deletion option for empty categories. However, if you have a significant number of categories in mind for deletion (either specific ones or any that fit certain criteria), it would be good if you run that by someone first, especially if they're not content categories. If an admin agrees they should be deleted, he or she might do it without making you go through the process of QD'ing them.
Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It helps.
Using lad:Special:UnusedCategories, I have 463 such categories, of which all but 6 are of the form
[[Category:User langcode-level]]. They were usually created by bots in 2006, and have not been edited since except by bots managing iw links.
I also have a great number of unused Babel userboxes. In principle, these are now obsolete because of the Babel parser function. Of course, many such templates are in use, because there are a lot of people who have never changed their userpages from the Babel template form ({{Babel|...}}) to the parser function form ({{#babel:...}}).
But I'm thinking to delete empty categories first. I'm the admin, so I can do this without running a QD first. And I probably wouldn't delete any language-level category where even one speaker of the language exists at any level. But there are still a great many I could delete. Unless I'm understanding you wrong, the only way to do this is a long, tedious, manual process. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, my answers were for this wiki. I don't know the policies of ladwiki. I wouldn't consider the language userboxes obsolete just because the Babel parser function exists, unless there is a policy to use only that function and everything gets converted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Help please.

Yo. Just had a go at making this page here and thought I'd ask if you were able to sort out the template thing for me? It doesn't seem to be showing the correct age of death. And I can't work it out for my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.131.105 (talkcontribs) 22:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You had the template parameters in the wrong order. They always go in the same order in the template, no matter what order they display in. You can always look at the template to see the instructions. By the way, the article needs some simplifying. It might help to look at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, again. Just did a little page about a brother of the above which can be seen here, same issue again. The age is not showing his proper age and I'm really losing patience. I thought I'd ask if you could sort him out for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.32.254 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. Please look at the documentation for the template so you can see how to do it. I also noted the following:
  • I removed some extra blank lines. You only need one blank line at a time in most places.
  • If an article has references, it is not enough to code just the "References" section heading. You also need to code the {{reflist}} template to make sure the references appear in the right place.
Also, when you leave a message on a talk page, please sign it by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

How to hide a particular thing

How to hide a particular thing and not the other which comes after.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. Can you give me an example? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

If i make a long list article, some will see it and get tensed of the long list. we can hide it and if they want see it. they must click on "show". My question is how to hide a particular list of my wikiproject india, without hiding other letters.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I think what you want is the template {{hidden}}. The template documentation gives examples of how to use it. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Me, (Again)

Hello again. I just did this page here and yet again, the template will not cooperate with me. Could you sort it out for me please? Sorry and thanks for your time.

You have the numbers in the wrong order in both the {{birth date}} template and the {{death date and age}} template. The order in the birth template is birth year, birth month, birth day. The order in the death template is death year, death month, death day, birth year, birth month, birth day. I'll let you fix them yourself so thst you get the practice. You can always look at the template documentation if you need a reminder. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

evacuate from vs had to leave

Evacuate from was changed to had to leave. Why is that? Is evacuate from complex? Tell me please. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's complex. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wiki tamil 100/Wikiproject India

Namaste! Thank you for the invitation. I've never felt the need to belong to a WikiProject in order to contribute to a subject area, so I will not join at this time. I wish you success with the project. You might want to announce it at Simple talk so that more people can learn about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You can help me in making a page of wanted articles for my wikiproject. i request you to make this page. i will make the articles with reliable sources. can you?--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How would I know what articles to put on the list? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Help me in deleting an article in simple eng wiki

The article of Karikal is written as the port city in Karaikal district. The name differs there. Karikal is nothing but he is a chola ruler. The name of the port city of Karaikal district is "Karaikal". So i want to you to delete the article completely. I will make a new article about Karaikal, because it is my home town.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How about this: I will move the article to the correct spelling. Then you can improve it under that name. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that you already created the new article. I will redirect the old one there. I will also update the Wikidata interwiki language link to point to your new article. In the future, if you see something like this, please don't just create the new article without taking care of the old one, because the Wikidata links won't get taken care of. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work here :) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 10:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

removing the from the front of Billboard

The word the was removed from in front of Billboard in several articles that I created. Is there a reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The name of the publication is "Billboard", not "The Billboard". --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Challenges for Simple English Wikipedia

What would you say were the most significant challenges for simple English Wikipedia? What lessons could the admins of a simple French Wikipedia learn? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: One of the biggest challenges here is that many editors don't understand how to write in simple language. It's not easy. You have to understand English extremely well in order to make good word choices and understand how to write in short sentences. One of the things we allow and even encourage is copying articles here from English Wikipedia ("enwiki"), as long as the language is simplified. However, many editors don't simplify enough, if at all. Some editors try just deleting parts of sentences, but if you're not careful that can end up changing the meaning of the sentence. Dividing compound sentences can also be difficult to do properly.
Another challenge is that editors don't understand that this is a separate Wikipedia from English Wikipedia. It has its own policies, guidelines, and practices; many of them are the same as enwiki, but some are not. We often have people come here who are used to enwiki and start doing the same things here that they're used to, only to find out that some of the things they're doing aren't wanted here. I keep a list of some of these things at User:Auntof6/Things I would like Wikipedia editors to know#Things we do here that might be different from other Wikis. Feel free to look at that and ask any questions you might have.
Those are a couple of big challenges we have. If I think of others, I'll let you know. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger of Video game genre

Hello Auntof6, the merger of the two articles Video game genre and Video game genres would be amazing, as the infobox for video games has a part called Genre(s) leads to Video game genre , While Video game genres goes in to greater detail. Thank you Lolcats20 (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from me, but that sounds reasonable. You could also change Video game genres to List of video game genres and keep it. Enwiki has both articles, so we could, too. Whichever you do, make sure that the Wikidata links are correct and that they don't point to a redirect. Both articles could use more info in them, too: the newer article is only a dicdef. I also see that it's not categorized, so you could take care of that, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I have Moved Video game genres to List of video game genres, but I appear to be unable to redirect Video game genre to List of video game genres. Lolcats20 (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Redirect made. Etamni | ✉   09:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we want that redirect. I think we want Video game genre to be a separate article. You also need to fix the Wikidata links. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

The IP that made that change to my talk page is a sock puppet who causes the same exact nuisances on en.wiki. The IP is {{checkuser-block}}'d on en.wiki. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hello Auntof6, I was wondering if I did the edits correctly. Manuaska (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Manuaska: It would help if you were more specific, but here are some things I noticed:
  • Some articles you created aren't simple enough. You might like to read Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia to get some information on how to copy articles from other Wikipedias. I think it would be a good idea to get a better understanding of that before you create more articles.
  • I don't see attribution on any of your new articles. I assume you copied at least some of them from English Wikipedia ("enwiki"), and attribution is required when you do that.
  • Inheritance (novel) didn't show notability, so it was deleted.
  • The second sentence in Bedminster, New Jersey gives a population number, but you removed the time frame for it.
Those are all issues with pages you created. On the other hand, your vandalism reverting is very good. :)
I haven't looked at all of your changes. If there are specific ones you're interested in having me look at, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback.
Message added 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding my request for rollback rights. According to the request page, "Once autoconfirmed, admins/rollbackers from other projects can be granted rollback without these requirements." Music1201 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: It says can be granted, not will be granted. It's not automatic. However, User:Chenzw has now given you the rights so it's his responsibility to make sure you use them appropriately. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding welcoming to ip address

Hello. Auntof6 I have a question to ask .Can welcome Ip address? I have mistakely welcome an ip address. Please Reply as quick as you can.~ Bivek bhattarai (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In general, it's OK to welcome IP users. With any user, we do want you to wait until you see that the user is actually doing good work here. We don't want to welcome a user who is vandalizing. The other thing is that, since you are so new here, it's probably better that you not welcome users yet. Wait until you have been doing work here for a while. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Auntof6 For your suggestion I appreciate it.But i want to work hard To make Wikipedia better so i was helping.~ Bivek bhattarai (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, in at least one case, IP user 115.64.79.118, you welcomed a user who had only made one change, and that change was a bad one. In other cases, you welcomed people who had not made any changes yet. Our practice is to wait until we see new users making good changes before welcoming them. Welcoming users who haven't made changes, or users who have made bad changes, isn't helpful. It's better that you not welcome users yet, but if you do, please only welcome users who are making good changes. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Adoption Application

Please will you Adopt me.?~ Bivek bhattarai (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. One reason is that, after I told you we don't welcome users unless they're making good changes, and asked you not to welcome users at all, you welcomed another user who was making bad changes. If I adopted anyone, I would expect them to follow our policies, guidelines, and practices once they know about them. You're welcome to ask me questions, but I'm not interested in adopting you. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you show me the written policy?

With all due respect, can you show me the written policy on that? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's covered at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. That doesn't specifically say it has to be unanimous (sorry, my mistake), but it does say it has to be clearly a keep. That RfD was not clearly a keep: out of four opinions (including me, the proposer), one editor felt that they should be deleted and one said "weak delete" on the templates (but keep the category). That's sort of 1.5 opinions for deleting and 2.5 for keeping. To be clearly a keep, it needs a wider margin than that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
OK. I understand your perspective. That said, I felt that the result was a clear keep in that we had reached T+20 days after the scheduled closing date without a clear consensus to delete. And that was especially true in light of the explicit discussions both on that page and at WP:AN. It felt to me that everyone was reaching the conclusion that there was no consensus to delete. You are always particular about the rules, and I do respect that. But I also think there is something to be said for unblocking a logjam and moving on, and I think there was even room for an interpretation of the rules to allow me to do that here. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Having no consensus is not a clear result, it's a mixed result. To be clear, the opinions need to be greatly in favor of one option or the other. The amount of time that has passed does not affect that. I don't think this was a logjam; there was no compelling reasons to get this closed quickly. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Deaths in August 2015

Hey Auntof6 I need some backup. Some IP user is adding his mother into the page so I reverted it but he continues to undo my edits. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was only three edits, they were all within a few minutes, and it has now been almost half an hour since the last edit. Maybe he/she is finished trying, but let me know if it continues. I don't think protection is called for yet. I recommend leaving a polite message on the user's talk page, just in case he/she honestly believes the page is a general page for obituaries. If it continues, we couldn't block the user if no messages have been left. I'd leave a custom message, not one of the automated ones. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't asking for a protection on the page, but just to help me write something on his/her talk pager because I've never done it before and since you're the expert I came to you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
At this point I'd probably wait to see if it happens again, but you could write something like this:
"Hello. I noticed that you added information about your mother's death to the page Deaths in August 2015. I send my sincere condolences for your loss. You probably didn't know, but each entry on pages like Deaths in August 2015 requires a reference from a reliable source, and some indication of why the person was notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. I realize that every mother is notable to her family, but on Wikipedia we have a stricter definition of notability. If your mother meets that definition, then please add her information again with a reliable source and something about what made her notable (according to Wikipedia's definition of notability). Feel free to ask if you have any questions about this or any of Wikipedia's other policies. Thank you."
How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Very nicely done.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I have my moments! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

House of Natoli

I filled the page, but I have not violated any copyrights. There were copies of the content plagiarism. Where you've seen? Please do what you riprestinare arbitrarily taken away for no reason. The work was not copied from anyone, and is full of sources. thank you. --Prof.John Fox (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prof.John Fox: The page was the same as text at http://everything.explained.today/House_of_Natoli/. That page links to an article at English Wikipedia as its source, but there is no article with that text at English Wikipedia. Since that page says it is published under the GNU Free Documentation License, I can restore it. However, there is an issue with it: the text is not simple enough for this Wikipedia. It would need to be simplified. I will restore it to your userspace so that you can work on simplifying it. The page Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia explains how to simplify text. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the article. It is now at User:Prof.John Fox/House of Natoli. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I am the original author of that text: http://everything.explained.today/House_of_Natoli/ reported. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I ask you to restore the page completely. I take full responsibility for declaring that the text is mine alone, obviously with the use of the sources listed in the footnotes. thank you. --Prof.John Fox (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Your authorship is not in question. There are two issues. The first is copyright, which I am satisfied is not a problem as I originally thought. The second issue is whether the text is appropriate for this Wikipedia. It is not appropriate for this Wikipedia, because it is not simple enough. It would be fine for English Wikipedia, but articles here on Simple English Wikipedia must be written in simple language, which this is not. I gave you a link to a page that explains how to simplify text. Please look at that and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback by PokestarFan

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at User:PokestarFan/sandbox/List of Ancient Greek Philosphers.
Message added 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you prefer multiple reasons to be specified?

During a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_117#Template_problem, it was suggested that admins would look at QD nominations and apply any applicable criteria, and that it was not necessary to specify every possible criteria when making nominations for QD. Today, I nominated Pikepass for QD, using the A1 criteria (Little or no meaning). The entire text of the article stated "Pikepass is what Oklahoma City Thunder fans use to pay tolls." I believe that this statement has little meaning, thus the use of the A1 criteria. I could also have used A4 (notability) or G2 (test page). It is noteworthy that Pikepass has nothing to do with the interlinked Oklahoma City Thunder other than geographical proximity. Pikepass is one method of prepaying tolls in Oklahoma (and Kansas and parts of Texas). The statement made in the article is not even correct, since undoubtedly some fans of the team don't live or drive in Oklahoma, some use methods other than Pikepass to pay tolls, and some people who use Pikepass might not be fans of this particular NFL team. When I looked at this, it was clear that this could not be fixed by removing the irrelevant clause, since doing so would gut the sentence and leave it with no meaning at all. There are no references and there is not even a claim of notability in this one sentence stub. I took a quick peek at enWiki to see if there was something there that an article could be modeled after; all I found was a redirect to a larger article about Turnpikes of Oklahoma. I could have written something about what Pikepass is, without the reference to an NFL team, but this would have left it as little more than a dictionary definition -- something that you have stated doesn't belong here. Etamni | ✉   23:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question in your heading, I have no preference about how many QD reasons are specified. If you specify more than one, then if an admin looks at it and thinks one doesn't apply, then he/she can use one of the others. We often don't use the specified reason anyway.
To me, this article was borderline, so I decided to decline the QD. I'd have no objection to your taking it to RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

removing certain years from song articles

You removed certain year categories from many song articles. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at Simple talk about categorizing songs vs. singles. We don't currently have categories for singles, but singles can have many dates because they can be released as singles by more than one artist. A song, on the other hand, has only one date: the date that it was written, or first published, recorded, released or performed (whichever we have the earliest date for). Since our categories are for songs, not singles, we only need the earliest date, so I am removing the later dates. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

category change

A few months ago you removed a category from 13th century, which an IP has just restored. As categories are not my strong suit, I'll leave this to you to determine if the article should now be in that category or if the IP should be reversed. Etamni | ✉   23:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I took it back off. On enwiki, they do put both the article and the eponymous category in the parent category, but we don't do that here. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing archives

I'm simply trying not to leave a bad link there. If you don't care about that, then I won't do it again. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Archives of any kind should not be edited, except to archive more info. It's understood that things on archive pages can become out of date. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. System messages I've seen in some places (here and at enwiki) imply that fixing links after page moves is at minimum allowable, notwithstanding the general rule on not editing archives. But I'll note that the system messages imply that, they don't state it explicitly, so perhaps I am overreading the instructions. In any event, certainly these are your archives, and you're entitled to manage them as you see fit. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the one you changed was my talk page archive, but other archives shouldn't be changed, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, see Help:Archiving a talk page, and particularly the section Advantages of cut and paste. This explicitly says that archives can be edited lightly for clarity. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Marion Lambert COD

Art collector Marion Lambert died from injuries she got after being hit by a bus. I'm struggling on how to word it on her entry at Deaths in May 2016. Any ideas? I need help on this one. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with "road accident"? Maybe "injuries from being hit by a bus"? You do need to disambiguate "Belgian", though, as well as several other nationality words on the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ENwiki question

Is it OK to link to enwiki, like so? Just wanna make sure. (This isn't a syntax question, I meant, is that a good idea). Krett12 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to see that. Eventually, at least in theory, there would be an article here on the subject, and we'd want the link to be to that article. If we link to the enwiki article and the article gets created here later, we aren't likely to find all the enwiki links to change them. Also, if we have enwiki links instead of red links, we can't see that we need the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Krett12 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please make yourself flood flag?

You seem to be doing a lot of editing on those school essays. Krett12 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I am assuming good faith. It just makes it a little hard to read Krett12 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I am editing a number of them, but I'm not doing enough to need the flood flag. There are only about 20 altogether, and I'm not editing all of them. The threshold we've used before for needing the flood flag is around 100 of the same kind of edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, alright. It's not *that* bad. Krett12 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Help me update

Hillary Clinton has won the nomination and I was wondering if I can have your help to update her page and the 2016 Democratic Primary articles. I'll do the 2016 election page and Bernie Sanders and Donald trump. Thanks --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Actually, she has not yet won the nomination. The nomination is decided at the Democratic Party's convention, which will be held later this year. She might have gotten enough delegates to get the nomination, but that is not the same as getting the nomination. Funny things happen at the conventions: we can't be sure at this point. If you have made any changes saying that she has won the nomination, please undo them. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
After I wrote the above, I saw a story about the Associated Press sending out an erroneous tweet saying that Hillary had clinched the nomination. Apparently someone included superdelegates in the count, but you can't count those until they actually vote at the convention. (Superdelegates can vote however they like, and they can change their mind any time up until they actually vote.) If you're intetested, this YouTube video talks about what happened (excuse some of the language in the video). --Auntof6 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Alrighty thanks! I do believe in media bias against Sanders always as they never give him credit or hope. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC all said she won, technically yes due to superd. but in pledge she still needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Who created Illinois Territory?

You deleted it before I could send a warning. Krett12 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It was User:24.100.143.212. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Mehmed Selim Orhan

Hello, I see you changend it again, but if you have read about Mehmed Selim Orhan, it is the same page from His stepfather Mehmed Orhan. So why you changend it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs)

Hi, Auntof6. I agree with Nalanidil. The link right now just redirects to the same page. If we want to have the link in there to encourage a future article, we should delete the redirect so it appears as a redlink. But, if we're going to make Selim article redirect to this one, we should keep the link out. Only (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

Hi, Auntof6. I see you've restored comments at User talk:197.88.60.117 a few times in the last day. Remember, per guidelines about talk page blanking, users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page. While obviously it would be nice for future users to see what the IP was warned about previously, the IP is not required to keep the warnings up. Only (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine. To me, it's OK for registered users to do it, because we can be sure of who they are. With unregistered users we can't be certain, but I'd agree that all the recent changes by that IP seem to be from the same person, and I see that the guideline (it's not a policy) specifically says that it applies to both registered and unregistered users. It's unfortunate, though, because in practice I doubt many editors check the page history to see if there's anything relevant (such as repeated blocks or warnings) when deciding what messages to leave or whether/how long to block. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
We do generally restore them for IPs. You weren't actually in the wrong. Especially when it concerns block history. The link provided by @Only: is for en.wiki. Our user page policy does not have that provision. Instead ours treats IP talk pages with the following. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

If you see the history you'll see a lot of vandalism on the article done by unregistered users. Would the article quality for some sort of protection. Like example Trump and Clinton are protected until November, something like that for the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's warranted. The Trump and Clinton pages were getting vandalism related to their campaigns, so it makes sense to protect them until the campaigns are over in November. There's no similar thing going on about Mandela as far as I know, and it isn't getting as much vandalism. The standard for this kind of protection is to protect a page if we can't keep up with the amount of vandalism it's getting. I think we're keeping up with vandalism on the Mandela page just fine.
That being said, this is only my opinion. If you want to actually ask for protection, as opposed to asking for an opinion about it, you could ask at WP:AN. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Gulf of Eilat / Gulf of Aqaba

look in the map and see that the city of Eilat is in the edge of the gulf in the most northern point. פארוק (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@פארוק: Why are you asking me to do this? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Becuse the correct name should be: Gulf of Eilat פארוק (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
פארוק, I'm afraid that in English the ordinary name is Gulf of Aqaba. And remember, I'm pretty much on your side. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And someone here is insists to called it Aqaba after i create this under the name "Eilat" , despite it does not matter really. פארוק (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
See en:WP:COMMONNAME, which is also a policy here. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Golan Heights

And by the way my friend. the Golan Heights was a Jewish from the biblical period before the Arab invation. פארוק (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

word deaths removed from article

The word deaths was removed from an article about the 2003 European heat wave. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying that people died is simpler and more straightforward than saying that there were deaths.
There was one other thing I meant to mention about this article. Your version said "It was combined with droughts". The enwiki version said "the heat wave... combined with drought". When you add the word "was" the way you did, it changes the sentence to a phrasing that implies that it was done deliberately, which of course it wasn't. You need to be very careful when you reword things like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

My page

Could you please semi protect my userpage for 2 days (with only autoconfirmed users to edit). That's per my request. Thanks and feel free to leave me a talkpage on my page! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 17:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@LaurenCox600: Done, but why only two days? The page hasn't been vandalized, and it can be permanent if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand but it is my request though. I want it protected because I want it protected. 2 days should be fine even though my page was not vandalized. Thanks for doing it though! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, no need to be snippy. I was just trying to minimize work for admins in case you want it protected again in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

LaurenCox600

Hi there. So I came on and was noticing a pattern that concerns me, and wanted to see your thoughts on it. This particular user LaurenCox600 seems to be acting a lot like Krett12/Computer Fizz in behavior. This behavior includes sarcastic edit summaries, admin-like behavior, and reliance on tools specifically for "vandal fighting" with minimal content creation. In addition, her account first edited on 24 June 2016, which is the exact same date that Computer Fizz stopped. I was going to ask for a CheckUser, but I wasn't sure if there was enough disruptive behavior to justify asking for one. I would like to know if you think there's strong enough evidence to ask, or if it would be a waste of time and resources to do? Thank you, Lithorien TalkChanges 19:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hadn't quite figured out who that user was resembling, but it did occur to me that the user was claiming to be new, but knew the ropes. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Where not the same user. Period! Lithorien, just because I created the account was created on June 24 doesn't mean I am the same user as them. I'm glad you didn't told CU. Incase anyone wants to know about me:
  1. I am NOT related to Krett12 or Computer Fizz and I don't know who they even are.
  2. I am not acting like a admin and saying stuff like "oh I'm going to block you". no that's NOT what I say. The IPs who harrased me were acting like admins and making stupid edit summaries.
  3. My edit summary's are NOT sarcastic and I don't lie in these edit summaries.
  4. I am NOT Krett12 or Computer Fizz.
  5. I am reverting vandalism, NOT disrupting this place.
And StevenJ81, just because I resemble someone doesn't mean I am related to them. I don't even know who they are. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I DO NOT DO SOCK PUPPETRY, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE SUCH ACCUSATIONS ABOUT ME!. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with Lithorien, the behaviour evidence does indicate that there's something fishy here. On Auntof6 talk page alone, Computer Fizz suddenly comments right after User:LaurenCox600 made a comment. I would suggest a CU investigation on LaurenCox600 and Computer Fizz. To LaurenCix600, I will say calm down, if you are not a sock, you have nothing to worry about. If you are not a sock, you should welcome getting cleared of such suspicions. Cheers, — MBlaze Lightning 04:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's end this discussion, at least on my talk page.

@Lithorien: I try not to draw this kind of conclusion. If you think there's cause, ask for a checkuser service at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. I don't have the checkuser right, so I can't do that. Without evidence, we don't assume that two users are the same person.

@StevenJ81: I believe this user has experience on enwiki. That would explain her knowing "the ropes".

@Computer Fizz: Please do not shout on my talk page. I'm not going to take any action because I can't, so there's no need to argue here. You might want to watch Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to see if a checkuser service request is made.

@MBlaze Lightning: See my comments to Lithorien.

And finally, @LaurenCox600:

  • You also had some inappropriate edit summaries. See the edit summaries at [2], [3], [4]*, [5]*, and [6]*. Those last three, the ones with asterisks, were for warnings that also contained some inappropriate content. Being harassed is not an excuse for that. Just report the harassers and let the admins take care of it. It also doesn't help to complain that people are hurting your feelings. The harassers won't care, and hurting people's feelings isn't an actionable offense.
  • Even if you are not the editors people are comparing you to, the fact that they see similarities with editors who have caused issues in the past should tell you that people have problems with your work here. Try to learn from that.

Now all of you, stop fighting on my talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nailed it now let's close this discussion and not talk about it anymore. Auntof6 feel free to send a a warning about personal attacks. Thanks and I'm closing this discussion. Regards, --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 05:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@LaurenCox600:
  • I do not need your permission to give warnings. If any warnings were given for any of this, you would get some of them yourself.
  • You cannot close a discussion on another user's talk page. If we need to talk about this again, we will talk about it again.
Please stop acting as though you are in charge of everything. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
First off I never said I was going to warn you. Second I was closing this so people can stop talking bad about me. How am I acting in charge of everything if I don't say stuff like "oh I'm going to block you"? --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 12:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I promise you that it was a coincidence. I actually haven't been on Wikipedia in a week or two. As for toolbased editing and acting like an admin, I *used* to do that, but not anymore. 2601:1C0:4500:FA:21D7:6CC3:84BA:2BBB (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Stanley Cup Finals

Could you or Rus help me expand 2016 Stanley Cup Finals, an article I created. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 04:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for Rus. What kind of help are you looking for? I don't want to write any of it myself, because it's not a topic I'm interested in. I could make comments toward improving it, though. Here are a few:
  • There's something wrong with the syntax for the image in the infobox. All that displays is "250px".
  • In the first paragraph, the name of the article should be in bold.
  • In the references section, the R in "references" should be capitalized.
  • There should be references. Until there are some, the references section should be removed.
  • You could add a category to indicate the year. Category:2016 in sports would be good, unless there's a more specific subcategory.
  • If you based this on an article from English Wikipedia, you must include attribution.
What else would you like help with? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
BTW, further discussion should probably be on the article's talk page. You can ping me there if needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Already added the category in the article. Capitalized references too. Adding references too. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkbacks

How come you don't like talkbacks? --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 19:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

They're not necessary these days. I watch many talk pages and would see a lot of messages that way. Also, {{ping}} does just as good a job of letting people know someone wants their attention, and does it without cluttering talk pages. Keep in mind that when you leave a talkback message, everyone watching the page where you leave it gets notified. Most of those people don't need or want that notification, so using ping or just waiting to let people see that a page on their watchlist has changed is less disruptive. Just please don't start pinging everyone under the sun. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't ping a twinkle feature? I replied to your message on my talk. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 19:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6:, I tried it. It is better than talkback. Could you please reply on my talkpage under "suggestion" I pinged you there as well. Thank! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 00:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Lauren, I saw your reply on your talk page, then I saw you add the ping, but I don't have a response to anything you said.
I'm going to be blunt here: I don't need to hear details about things you've done (here or elsewhere) or things you've seen others do. I don't need to hear about how you feel you're being harassed or your feelings are hurt by what you see in edit summaries. People can't hurt your feelings if you don't let them. If you see inappropriate behavior, address it with warnings or reports at WP:VIP (after appropriate warnings) and don't keep posting on talk pages about it.
I don't care that you're planning to evoke the standard offer on enwiki, and I don't need you to explain it because I know what it is. I only care about what you do here, and so far you've been more disruptive than not. Half of your edits have been on user talk pages: that's very high and shows that you're more interested in chatting than improving the content here. You should know that in the past we have banned users for being disruptive, and you appear to be headed in that direction.
If you want to be non-disruptive, don't reply to this message. Try staying off of user talk pages, except to issue warnings. Just be constructive without talking about it and let your work speak for itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

Hi Auntof6! You are the only administrator I could think of at the top of my head, so I came to you to ask for some constructive criticism on my new page Vestmannaeyjar. It might be kind of long, but I would appreciate any type of suggestion or criticism. I am trying to strengthen my article-writing skills, and this article accurately portrays my current skill level. Thanks in advance! --Alicezeppelin (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't reply to your comment on Commons

I just wanted to let you know that I cannot respond to your comment on Commons. Michael Miggs decided for the Commons community that he didn't want me editing on Commons and indef blocked me. So I guess you can do whatever you want with that category. Reguyla (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

How do you appeal a block if you can't edit talkpage? I just want to know! --2607:FCC8:BC8B:6DF0:15AD:4C27:8AD6:977C (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You can send an email to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you use Special:EmailUser to send it to them? Just wondering! --2607:FCC8:BC8B:6DF0:15AD:4C27:8AD6:977C (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No, because it's a mailing list, not a registered user. Just put that string in the "To" field of an email. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick question

Why does the indefinitely blocked account bluegoblin7 IP block exempt? Doesn't seem good for a blocked user to have that right. Computer Fizz (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. If you can tell who made it IP block exempt, that person might be able to tell you. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It's been flickering on and off, but the most recent one was by Chenzw because they were caught in a rangeblock. Anyway, I sorta meant why you didn't remove that one (that's the most important out of all of them) not why they were there in the first place. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it appears they're not even blocked at all. Not being condescending here, but I think you should put them back. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know how that happened. I thought I'd seen an indef block message before I changed the rights. Maybe I got redirected from one of her other accounts. I'll put the rights back. Thanks for catching this. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:VIP

Are you around this afternoon? I just reverted a bunch of pages, including some nasty attack pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As you've seen, this was taken care of. Thanks for keeping on top of reverting and qd-ing. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and glad to be of service. I'm sending an oversight request by email on a couple of those items, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you *please* use flood flag next time?

Just look at recent changes. Krett12 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but those changes do not meet the threshold for needing the flood flag. Back when I had to request it (before I was an admin), I was told that the flag could be given if I were going to do more than about 100 of the same kind of change. The changes I did recently were not all of the same kind, and the number of each kind wasn't near 100. I do try to mark those kinds of changes as "small", though, so you could filter them out by clicking the option "Hide small changes". --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, IMO they don't really need to be the same kind. For example, it's just repetitive things of the same kind. It'd be better to just see one line instead of almost all 50 recent changes.
As one of the main things I do is revert vandalism, some vandals mark their edits as minor and I like to watch them.
If I adjust my RC settings, will it impact past edits? I want to fix the problem more than I want to complain about it :) Krett12 (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I certainly understand about not believing that edits marked minor are really minor. I also don't trust edit summaries from editors I'm not familiar with.
The issue about the edits being the same kind has to do with not unnecessarily hiding edits. As many edits as possible should be fully visible. We've had this discussion many times before, and this is the consensus from all those discussions.
I'm not sure what you're asking about adjusting your RC settings. If you hide the minor changes, then you won't see them unless you toggle back to showing them again. That includes all minor changes, no matter when they were made. Does that answer your question? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela protection

Auntof6 this article, Nelson Mandela, keeps on getting vandalized by unregistered users. I was wondering if this is suitable for a protection? As in only registered users can edit like Donald Trump and Barack Obama articles. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess, because there have been several editors. I think this case is borderline because the vandalism has been mostly within a short time each day, but I've semi-protected it for two weeks. For future reference, this kind of request might be better at WP:AN so that any available admin would see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code (movie)

On this particular article, the word grisly was removed. Also, the word substandard was changed to poor. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I was simplifying the article. Those are complex words that should have been simplified when the article was created. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Hello. I do not know why you put back edits by this record label vandal blocked on three wikis. But I am sure you know what is best. Regards. ErikvanB (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

...and who now has a global block. ErikvanB (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I was putting back links that you removed, because we keep red links on this wiki. Just because someone is blocked or a vandal doesn't mean that all of their edits are bad. If there is bad information on the page, then remove that without unlinking other things. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Thank you for your response. Keep up the good work. ;-) ErikvanB (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Discouraging re-creation of the deleted template

Given that it has been deleted three times now, perhaps Template:British diaspora should be set up as a redirect, pointing users to Template:European diasporas. What do you think? Etamni | ✉   08:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Feel free to do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Etamni | ✉   15:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

How many administrators are there in Simple Wikipedia? Sarojupreti (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There are currently 18 of them. Is there a particular reason you ask? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new QD criteria for templates

Aunt, I wonder what you think of these. Wording can be tweaked; I'm interested in what you think about them conceptually.

  • Ta. Template that calls a Lua module that is not present on Simple English Wikipedia. This explicitly excludes templates that call Lua modules that are present, but calls them incorrectly, so that the template is broken.
  • Tb. Navigational template having no links, red or blue, in the body of the template. Justification: if there are not links, it's not a navigational template.

I would propose that {{Under construction}} or similar could forestall QD, as that would imply that someone is working on getting everything put together.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You can try. I suggested a new one similar to your second one, and it didn't pass. Having no links in a navbox is pretty rare anyway; I remember only 2 or 3 like that. I'd probably oppose the first one, because bringing over a missing Lua module is an easy fix. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Re the first, there's still the matter of whether someone wants to bring over and maintain the module. Maybe an RfD process is better for bringing the situation to someone's attention, so that people who know Lua can decide what they want to do about it. Thanks for your response. Maybe we'll leave these alone for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Achraf Baznani

Hello^^

I saw that you removed the plagiarism section on the article.

I want you to know that the 41.* IP has the possibility to edit the baznani.com website. The guy played with that on WP:fr. He even changed his robots.txt to avoid archiving. The proof : Google cache: no comment on that page a couple of days ago.

The sentence I wrote is not plagiarism. I'm a honest guy, and I do not accept to be consider as anything else.

I really would like you to bring that quote back. It has correct references. It is information. Nothing more, nothing less.

That article has absolutely no real references: the Baznani team turns everything to their advantage. That guy STOLE pictures. Please read that :

And I must say that I'm extremely shocked that you deleted that without asking for explanations, even after deletion.

Heddryin [🔊] 07:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thst text was an exact copy of text on another web page. I don't think it matters that the text on the other page was in a comment. We don't want directly copied text here when it isn't clearly allowed and credited under one of the standard licenses. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I know what you mean. But the text was inserted after I inserted it here. 41.* is a webmaster of baznani.com
Just watch on google cache!
Heddryin [🔊] 18:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
In case you need one more proof: [9] Heddryin [🔊] 18:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you don't plan to answer, please tell me, so I'll stop wasting my time waiting for an answer...
Heddryin [🔊] 10:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

About my account

Do you know LaurenCox600? She's actually my best friend but I ain't no sock of her though. I may edit the same thing she did but I am not a sock of her. Do you know LaurenCox600 @Auntof6: --SanJoseGirl6 (Talk to Ashley!) 05:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Awake?

Please see new changes, specifically the ongoing creation of a new project in Wikipedia space. Etamni | ✉   07:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the project page to the user's userspace. I'll look at the other things, but you feel free to check them, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I have been looking at them. I was reluctant to move them to userspace without the user's agreement, absent involvement from an admin. Our guideline is pretty clear that they belong there, but doesn't specify the procedure when the creator doesn't agree. Separately, I would like to see as much effort put into improving articles that would fall into the scope of the project as was put into setting up the project pages. Unfortunately, there may be other issues that will interfere with that, however. Etamni | ✉   08:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I was AFK briefly, but I see that one of the pages was moved after you moved it. I warned the user but couldn't move the page back since the user's move left a redirect. I see you have fixed the issue. It might make sense to salt the pages to prevent this from occurring again... Etamni | ✉   09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please Do Not Move

Please Do Not Move That Project Because that is public project not mine private project. So Please Help Me. Tiger Gang Talk 08:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you mean it to be public. However, WikiProjects here are unofficial and are maintained in userspace. You can still have other people participate by working in the pages in your userspace.
One other note. I see that you are creating quite a few templates related to WikiProjects, such as for class and assessment. We don't use those here, so they will be deleted.
Please take some time to learn how things are done here, because there are quite a few differences. Feel free to ask any questions you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Why class and assessment are not used in Wikipedia. Tiger Gang Talk 08:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't use class, assessment, banners, and maybe other things, because WikiProjects here are unofficial. To have those various templates on article talk pages would imply that the projects were official, when they are not. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Why WikiProject is Unofficial. Tiger Gang Talk 08:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't have the manpower to manage them in any official way. This is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
After Completing moving all subpage, Please help me to improve that project by keeping my username. Now It is set as Wikipedia:Wikiproject Nepal. Please keeep User:Tiger Gang/Wikiproject Nepal in that Project. Tiger Gang Talk 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you. I have finished the cleanup I was doing. I think all the pages that were moved are under your user name now. Do you see any that aren't? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the user was referring to the removal of the category. Etamni | ✉   09:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah. The category was deleted because we don't use categories for WikiProjects. We did a cleanup project in the past to eliminate all the categories for individual projects. You can manage the various pages by keeping them as subpages of the main Wikiproject page. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to add: it might be better to keep info directly on the main project page than on separate pages. For example, the list of members and the to-do page could be coded directly in the main page. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

About Dame Lillard

@Auntof6: Why does the page say it needs to be in simple English? Is there any Seattle articles I can create so you can help me with it afterwards. Amin Hersheys (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, the sentences are fairly long and need to be divided. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages has some information on simple sentences. Second, the term "buzzer beater" is not simple. I assume it's sports jargon, and most jargon isn't simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Queen singles

Auntof6, I was going to give you an echo notification of thanks, but decided more was needed. I was the guilty culprit who added mass-amounts of this template from English Wikipedia. I really wished to just demonstrate its usefulness during the discussion. My bad for not adding my English Wikipedia attribution on the day I changed the template. I have promply made amends and done so now. Thanks for tying this up so neatly and closing the discussion. I will scold my own self. I need my 'I wuz bad lolcat' out for a while. Thank you again and now I will ping a thanks. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 16:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, Auntof6/Archives/2016 , i am requesting an edit. Please add:==Welcome!==, at the top of welcome template. Regards, Gadri (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The place to ask for an edit to a protected page is on that page's talk page, not on a user talk page. I would not add a heading to that template, because it is used by Twinkle. By the way, when you use that template, please be sure to substitute it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Also, adding a heading to a template is problematic. If you click the [edit] button on the heading, you are then editing the template, not the user's talk page. (I learned that the hard way). Computer Fizz (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Express Yourself (Madonna song)

When the article was being simplified, the word represent was replaced with about. What's the reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Because represent is the wrong word for saying what's in the lyrics. Just like when you say what's in the plot of a movie, you use about. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:

Hello. Many thanks for your advice. Regards.--Je7roi (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

restore the article

Koondukkili is a film acted by two major tamil heroes. it is a historical film of tamil cinema. do please restore it.--wiki tamil 100 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)--wiki tamil 100 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)--wiki tamil 100 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the article showed notability. A movie doesn't become notable because of who stars in it. Besides that, the article needed simplifying, even if only to use the word movie instead of film. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See WP:MOVIE for rules about notability of movies. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, but...

Speaking of saying that I've should've used the word 'ended' instead of 'diminished' to describe the British Empire, I just thought; when exactly did Britain stop being an empire? This is unclear. 1918? 1947? 1999? We aren't sure but saying "Today the empire no longer exists" but that relative time reference places the year 2016 as the default time and Wikipedia doesn't want to assume that certain times/places are the default. I'm not sure if you reverted my edits entirely or brought back some of the original wordings you felt were more accurate. --174.53.34.144 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Part of the problem is that we sometimes have to trade between the word that is objectively the best choice in English with a word that can reasonably qualify as Simple English.
For what it's worth, the one realm for which the British monarch explicitly took the title of "Emperor" was India. King George VI, the predecessor and father of Elizabeth II, dropped that title in June 1948. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lobbying

Hi, Just out of interest why did your auto category fix thing remove economics as a category on lobbying? I think that's a valid category personally. FSM Noodly? 02:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A person can lobby about economic matters, but the lobbying itself is not an economic thing. Lobbying can be about things like the environment or human rights, which are not specifically economic. And by the way, I didn't use any automatic thing: HotCat is not an automated tool. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I did not now that. Thanks for the reply. FSM Noodly? 12:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out that Why Ahmadiyyas are not Muslims could have been nominated for quick deletion. I hadn't seen thought that "product" could apply to a book, but good to know! Cheers, Irn (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

about my edits

How are my edits so far? Just want to know because I just do man. --SanAntonioGirl16 (♥ Text me ♥!) 01:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


The Life of Pablo

Why do you keep reverting my edit? It's obviously a notable album. Wackslas (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has to show how the album is notable. Nothing in it showed that. An album isn't considered notable just because the artist is notable. You can find information on how to show notability of albums at en:WP:NALBUM. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
There's an extensive Wikipedia article on it here. Wackslas (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Why did you revert it again? I was in the middle of updating it and I was about to add references. Wackslas (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't revert it today, but another editor did. Thanks for the additions. The part about debuting at number one on the Billboard chart shows notability. Now it just needs some categories. Let me know if you'd like help figuring out what categories to use. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Wikiversary.

8 years? That's pretty impressive. I'm still waiting for my first :P (Note: It is the 17th in my TZ but Wikipedia uses GMT time) Computer Fizz (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't realized. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I was gonna write a haiku but then I realized I don't know you as well as I think :P Computer Fizz (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

One strike

Does the 'one strike rule' apply to IPs, or is it just for regular users? J991 19:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I would think only registered users. The thing about IP editors is that we don't assume every edit by one IP is by the same person: we're not allowed to assume that. In addition, the onestrike thing applies to users who have been banned elsewhere, and IPs don't get banned or even indeffed. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Flood flag?

You are flooding new changes... :) Etamni | ✉   03:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Etamni: No, I'm not. That amount (plus the amount that I still have to do) is not considered flooding. The guideline I was given is that the flood flag might be needed if you're doing around 100 or more of the same kind of change. I'm not doing that many of what I'm currently doing. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) 100 is *two* recent changes worth. It should probably be less, IMO. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I doubt you'd get support for that: some people even think it should be more. We minimize use of the flood flag to keep as many changes as possible easily visible. And if you mean it's two screens worth of the recent changes display, that depends on how many you display at a time -- each user can set that number where they want it. I have mine set at 200. Besides that, those changes were marked as minor, so if you want you can suppress them by hiding the small changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

ended her life vs committed suicide

A few years back, ended her life was changed to committed suicide. What's wrong with ended her life? The page was Martha Gellhorn. Angela Maureen (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ended her life is somewhat of a euphemism. Euphemisms aren't straightforward or simple, so it's not good to use them on Wikipedia. See en:WP:EUPHEMISM for more information. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Category on redirect page

Does it make sense for a redirect page to be part of a category? Specifically, I'm looking at the redirect page Prato-Sornico which is categorized. Etamni | ✉   22:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this particular redirect should be categorized, because the target page has nothing substantial about Prato-Sornico.
In some cases, though, redirects can have categories. The main type of situation where I've seen that is for redirects to articles that are about a pair of people. For example, see Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, which both redirect to Bonnie and Clyde. These redirects can have categories that are for the individuals rather than for the duo, such as birth and death year categories. (Even though they died in the same year, the birth and death year categories are usually for individuals, not groups.) The targeted article has substantial info about both Bonnie and Clyde, and having the categories on the redirects allows the redirect pages to appear alphabetically under their surnames.
I hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Etamni | ✉   11:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete closure

A few months back, ARCO was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. The article is still showing the RfD tag. I would simply remove the tag, but I'm not sure if this is the only part of the close that was overlooked. (This came to my attention because it shows up on Chenzw's home page as an open RfD. That list is generated dynamically.) Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/ARCO. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Etamni | ✉   12:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Make that "Incomplete closures" with an "s" -- Cantor's diagonal argument was also closed incompletely. Etamni | ✉   12:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have removed the tag, as everything else seems to be in order. It's likely that Aunt simply forgot to remove the tag. I will add the oldrfdfull template to the talk page of the second article. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think Eptalon and I just forgot to remove the rfd templates and place the oldrfdfull templates. Thanks for pointing these out, and thanks to Caliburn for taking care of them. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Susanna Griso

I hope you don't mind if we follow the talk here, at least you and I. I know that section wasn't in the article deleted, however I have the Award section in my sandbox. So I'm gonna suggest one thing: I'm going to write it again with the info about her awards, and this time will aren't any problems. But don't worry, I don't gonna do right now, I'm gonna wait for your response. --Ravave (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you include the section about the awards, that would be a claim of notability and the article wouldn't qualify for quick deletion. Someone could still question the notability and use the WP:RFD process, but then you'd have a chance to discuss it. You might want to explain the significance of each of the awards, just so we have that information. You could do that either on the article's talk page or by writing articles about the awards. You don't have to do that, but it could help prevent people from trying to delete the article again. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Do you like California? --107.77.236.48 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There are things I like about it and things I don't like. Why do you ask? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I asked because of 2 girls. Do you know the 2 girls in California? Do you like when semi trucks drive in the fast lane? --107.77.233.80 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The 2 girls who edited here live there @Auntof6:. --166.137.98.36 (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't know what you're talking about. I imagine there are a lot of Californian girls who edit here. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: can you name some editors who said they live in California (SF Bay Area or LA)? --166.137.98.36 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
No, because I don't keep track of that, and because that's personal information that isn't my place to tell. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to interject, but this is getting a little odd. With that being said 1 of the IP's used to leave this message was just blocked globally as LTA, and a related 2nd IP that is in a similar IP range that was also blocked as LTA, also several blocks on enWiki for the same LTA . I at this point I am inclined to locally range block both sets as LTA myself. -- Enfcer (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking through the history, there are 4 /24 blocks of IP's that were used, I have since blocked them as LTA. While we could go to a larger range block, I do not feel it right to block long term larger ranges without further indication of abuse from the extended area. But as always we can expand it if needed. -- Enfcer (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

changing plural to singular

I noticed quite a few articles I created being changed from plural to singulars. Please clarify. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer that, I'd need some specific examples. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Flagrant foul
Glucose meter

These are two examples of plural changed to singular. Angela Maureen (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

First, article titles are singular. The lead sentence should mention the article title and be bolded, so it also needs to use the singular. It's also a little clearer in the singular. For example, if you say "glucose meters are tools that measure glucose", it can sound like "glucose meter" is a class of tools instead of a more specific thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Editing the pages

Hi

I am talking about editing the pages in wikipedia.

For some semi protected links, i am not seeing the "edit source" option . Instead of that, i am seeing view source..

Can you let me know why i am not getting edit source option.

Doppalapudi.hareesh (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Hareesh

To edit semi-protected pages, your account has to be auto-confirmed. To be autoconfirmed, your account has to be at least 4 days old, and you need to have made at least 10 edits. It looks like you have made only 6 edits.
I don't know which page(s) you're trying to edit. If the semi-protection is temporary, you could wait until it ends. Otherwise, you will need to wait until you have made 10 edits. When making those edits, please be constructive and do not make them just to get to 10 edits.
If you have other questions like this, it might be better to ask at WP:AN so that you don't have to wait for a specific administrator to see your message and reply. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Valdalist

Psychonaut EXTENDED CONFIRMED USER, PENDING CHANGES REVIEWER Have been removing contant on multiple pages saying that its copyrighted based by my reserch its not U+1F608 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you are on the wrong Wikipedia. User:Psychonaut has made just five edits on this Wikipedia project in the past ten years, the most recent of which was in 2014. Etamni | ✉   12:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, User:U+1F608 is a sockpuppet of en:User:Cyber Warrior, both of which are indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia. I doubt he knows the difference between English and Simple. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection request

User talk:Osiris has been vandalized by one or more IPs multiple times in recent weeks. Since the user has made no edits since March of this year, I am requesting that his talk page be semi-protected until his return. I think that a higher level of protection is not needed at this time. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Etamni | ✉   12:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I did so. Our low level of protection will not inconvenience any of our regular editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hello. Usually if an item can not be verifiable, what will he be welcome in an encyclopedia, is a book that not identifying knowledge already known and verifiable by exact sources? Follow a procedure for removing page even if the page is not a test or vandalism seems useless since nothing was found on her. Thanks in avance Apipo1907 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to my declining the QD on Hitler salute. I declined it because quick delete requests have to be for one of the defined quick delete reasons (see WP:QD). You can ask for deletion for other reasons at WP:RFD. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay , I was out QD criteria. I thought, go to WP:RFD is most often the pages of a contributor has doubts about their eligibility and not those whose content is not verifiable that is to say, they contain manifested unpublished work. Well Apipo1907 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

citing and claimed changed

Words citing and claimed were changed to said on Alicia Machado. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For one thing, citing wasn't used correctly. In both cases, the manual of style and other guidelines (including en:WP:SAID) say not to use synonyms for said. That's partly because they are less straightforward and often not objective. Besides that, those synonyms are usually not as simple as said.
If you haven't already read them, I recommend that you read the manuals of style here and at English Wikipedia. The answers to some of the kinds of questions you ask are there. If you have questions about anything there, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Other Websites section

Thanks. I will remember. (Anagram16 (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

Re:New categories

Hello, Auntof6. No problem, no questions for now and thanks for your message. Regards.--Je7roi (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please look at this when you have a moment

If you have time, could you take a look at my first attempt at simplification? I am a bit on edge because it is the first two paragraphs of the directions on how to make an entry in the Simple English Wiktionary. Policy plus a new language. I am surprised at how long it takes when every word must be considered. No complaints, just a little surprised.

"An entry in a dictionary (or Wiktionary) has all of the dictionary facts that are important to know about a word or group of words. The rules about making an entry are very detailed, but they result in entries that are easy to understand.
While the information below shows the usual way to make a Wiktionary entry, it is not the only way. If you try a different way of organizing an entry other users might reverse (revert) those changes back to the standard. They have just as much right to do that, as you have to make the changes in the first place. Be ready to talk about your changes. If you want your way to be accepted, you have to have a good reason for it. Unless there is a good reason, the standard form will be used."

Thanks for any feedback you can give me bobdog54 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bobdog54: I'd be glad to do that if you tell me where you want me to look. What article are you referring to? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess my head really had exploded. Sorry! I worked on the Page Summary and Flexibility

Simple Wiktionary Entry layout explained Thanks again. bobdog54 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

French communes

Is there a way to use AWB to update the region names in the French commune articles? There are thousands of commune articles and they mostly say "blank is a commune in the blank region", referring to the old region name. I've not used AWB so I'm not clear on the capabilities. Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There probably is, but I thought those had all been changed. Can you give me an example of one that hasn't been changed? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ambérieu-en-Bugey is an example. The 75ish articles I changed yesterday from Somme all had Picardie in the article itself. The majority I didn't create. Spot checked several in the subcategories of Category:Communes in France by department all had the old region in the article. I've never used AWB but I'll start reading up and learn how to do it. Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, it looks like there's still more work to do. You have to be approved to use AWB, and that approval isn't often given. The next time I'm on my laptop (as opposed to my tablet), I'll look at taking care of those. I already have AWB code that will make the changes.
The other thing that still needs to be changed is the processing in Template:Infobox French commune/regmap that displays the location of a commune within its region. Right now, old regions are still being displayed -- not just the old names, but the old geography. I've been looking at the way enwiki took care of it. Some of the enwiki processing still uses the same location maps as before, but it looks like they're using modules for some regions, and I have no experience with that. Do you happen to be familiar with modules? I noted that the redefined regions don't all have location maps that can be used by the non-module processing. Any thoughts on that? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tbennert: Pinging you. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm not familiar with modules. And I'm not really good at making large scale changes to templates. I'll take a look tomorrow at the en.wiki examples. As for AWB I have requested permission and am hopeful with my clean record, number of edits, and years that I will receive approval. Of course I won't make any changes until receiving approval. --Tbennert (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tbennert: You requested permission? I don't see you on the request page, Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. You have to request it separately for each Wikipedia where you want to use it, and each one has its own requirements. Here approval usually requires more than a clean record. You need to have specific work that you want to use it for, usually more than a one-time task like this. If you get approved and you'd like any help with it, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage says to be added to the list you need approval at en.wiki so that is where I requested permission.

@Tbennert: No, it didn't say that, that was just a link to information about AWB. I changed the wording to clarify that.

And oddly when I read the comments on the talk page you linked, DJSasso wrote that AWB is mainly granted for one time tasks. I'm not even going to bother applying for permission here. The outcome appears to already be decided.--Tbennert (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, please don't be discouraged. Looking back at the talk page, I see that I misspoke. I see where approval has been given for both one-time tasks and ongoing things. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi, how does one react when a user uses an abusive edit summary, such as here? Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You can warn them about it. The usual warning templates don't mention edit summaries, but you can add your own comment to them. I will revdel it so that it's not visible in the history. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Most wanted categories

Hello! There are some maintenance categories listed in Special:WantedPages. The "what links here" just has other categories and no articles. Category:Articles lacking sources from May 2011‏‎ is an example. Do you know how to remove these from the list?

There are 3 at number 1101 on the list. There are 2 more at 678 in the list. There's a big batch starting at 1501-2000. Should I just let you know when I find some? Or give me the directions on how to fix them if I see more? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tbennert:That list is not live, and doesn't seem to be updated as often as some of the other special pages. Even if an issue is resolved, the list changes only when the system updates it. When is that? I don't know. There are conflicting messages at the top of the page. One says that it was last updated on 26 October 2016; the other says "Updates for this page are currently disabled. Data here will not presently be refreshed." I see that the corresponding enwiki page says "This special page is rarely updated and the list below might be outdated." The corresponding eswiki page says that their version is updated twice a month: that may or may not be true. I'm thinking that a decision was made by The Powers That Be that this page didn't need frequent update, or maybe that it uses too many resources to run very often.
So you might be trying to resolve things when some/many of them aren't issues any more. At least one category that I spot checked was deleted a while back, so the related issues were probably taken care of. The ones that have articles linking to them might still be worth looking at, but I would think most of those wouldn't be "wanted" any more, they'd exist.
Does that make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The page updates every couple of weeks. I check it pretty regularly. I know for sure it is getting updated because the blue link, crossed out articles get removed from the list. And articles move up on the list if they are added to more pages, usually by templates being added.
I do know that the categories with actual articles need created, I was just not sure what to do with the ones that have been deleted but are still showing up as wanted. I checked a few of the BLP months that I had cleared, and you deleted recently, and they have links to random seeming other BLP months. I couldn't find the dates for the orphan months that I cleared to see if they had the same issue. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, it's good to know that it does get updated. I tried a few things to see if I could eliminate one of the links to Category:Articles lacking sources from May 2011, but nothing I tried worked. One thing all those categories have in common is the template that summarizes all the categories for the issue. Maybe the solution will involve the template. You might want to post this auestion at Simple talk to see if anyone else has an idea. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking into it. Figured I'd start with you since you're an expert in categories. I'll check on Simple Talk and see if I get lucky. Thanks again! --Tbennert (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Buffles" removed from article

The nickname "Buffles" was removed from an article I created. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty trivial and doesn't add much to the article, especially such a short article. If you want to put it back, then include a reference for it. The enwiki articles has a reference that you omitted for some reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

Why did you delete simple English wiki page "geometry dash"? The game has a huge community and I know that from the simple fact that I'm discovering new people who play the game! How does that not have 'Nobility'? I don't remember what was on that page but just edit don't delete it!! I created the page Mini Metro (a much smaller game that geometry dash {When i created the page the game was in beta, without music!!]) My Mini Metro wasn't taken down!!!! And GD is much bigger!!!! Sorry i have never put anything on a talk page before.... — This unsigned comment was added by Mcguy15 (talk • changes) at 13:26, 5 November 2016‎.

@Mcguy15: The article did not show notability, as defined by Wikipedia. It said only that it is a video game, who created it, what platforms it's available on, and gave a description of gameplay. None of that shows that the game is notable. It's not enough for the subject of an article to be notable; the article has to show that it's notable, usually by use of reliable sources. The only reference was to a wiki for the game, and wikis aren't considered reliable. If you would like to improve the article, I can restore it to a sandbox in your userspace where you could work on it. You could add information from the English Wikipedia article, being sure to include good references.--Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Kind request

Hello !
Actually unknowingly, as being newbie (know nothing much) in past year 2015 i've committed lots of mistakes here on simple wikipedia. My User:Tulsibot account blocked indefinite (log) by you which is appropriate. I apologies for what i've done. I'm really sorry :'( . It's about more than a year block. I kindly request you to please now unblock my account. Also, now i am aware of all the policies and how wikipedia works. Believe me such activities never gonna repeated. Hope positive response from you. Have a good day/evening ahead. Thanks for your consideration. — TBhagat (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tulsi Bhagat: If you would like your bot account unblocked, you need to have a specific task approved that the bot will be used for. You request that at Wikipedia talk:Bots, as you did before. If the task you want to use the bot for is approved, the bot could be unblocked so that you can do a trial run. Please make your request at Wikipedia talk:Bots. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we use the persondata template here?

I noticed the Persondata template is on several articles here. Do we still use that? Reguyla (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Several" is an understatement -- it's still on a lot of articles! The template is now obsolete because the purpose it served is now served by Wikidata. I remove it when I see it on an article I'm changing. When the number of uses gets down low enough, we'll probably make a point of removing the remaining ones. In the meantime, feel free to remove it when you work on a page that uses it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks, If I could be allowed AWB access I could knock that out pretty quickly. Along with Template:Portal and Template:Portal box. If not that's ok too, I'll just do it manually. I wasn't sure if it was still used here. Reguyla (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If you'd like AWB access, you can request it at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. If you decide to do it manually, just don't do too many at a time, so that you don't flood recent changes. The guideline I was once given is not to do more than about 100 of the same kind of change at a time. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Also be aware that after removing such templates, they can come back when new articles come over from other Wikipedias. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Reguyla (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Underpopulated categories

Greetings, I noticed you deleted a couple categories such as Category:Vossloh locomotives because they had too few entries. I notice though that these are generated by a template. How do we usually handle that here? Should we let the category be since it's generate by a category or change the template so it doesn't calculate the category at all? Reguyla (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I generally try and find a couple stubs I can create to boost the category to three articles. Others may handle it differently. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  There are quite a few redlinked categories that come from templates like that. With a few exceptions (which this one wouldn't be), I leave them red until there are at least three things in them. If we change the template, then we lose the category for the cases where there are enough entries. In this case, if we stopped the template from generating the category, the categories under Category:Locomotives by builder might become empty. So, for me, the options are either leave it as it is or create more articles so that there are enough to create the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think I can find a couple stubs to create to fill it in. Thanks for the clarification. Reguyla (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dated maintenance category

There really is no reason to keep a 12 year old maintenance category once it's been emptied but ok. Reguyla (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to leave you a message, to thank you for your cleanup work and explain why I declined those qds. There actually is a reason to keep those potentially dated statement categories, but to tell you the truth, I forget the exact explanation. It's something about the date in the category name not being for the date a notice was placed, unlike most of our other cleanup categories. Notice that those categories have the "don't delete even if empty" notice, which most cleanup cats don't have. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome and no problem. It's just another learning experience. Reguyla (talk)

Ventilation

Hello, I was looking at creating an article for ventilation but it seems it has already been attempted and vandalized. The creation page tells me to ask if I may proceed with creation. I intend to make it under all policies and guidelines. It would be a useful article on simple wikipedia. Thanks. Derek scissor hand

If you are going to create a good article, it's OK to recreate it. Just because a previous version of it was bad, that doesn't mean we shouldn't create a good version.
By the way, let me mention a couple of things about signing articles.
  • Please use a standard signature that includes a timestamp. Many talk pages are set up to be automatically archived, but that archiving doesn't work if timestamps are not used. Besides that, it's helpful to see the time, and it's very easy to do: either add four tildes, or just click on the signature button in the edit bar.
  • Please put your signature on the same line as your message instead of on a separate line. This is especially important if your text is indented.
Thanks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

List

Hello, sorry to bother but I am just wondering if you would be able to give me any insight on what else is needed from my list in order for it to be closed as kept. I am slowly creating the articles which are red but I am quite busy in real life. Please let me know. The request is 2 days overdue but I'm still unsure where I stand. Thanks --Derek scissor hand 17:27 14 November 2016 (UTC) I moved the comment to its own Category. Cultural guru

I'm not sure if I should keep eliminating reds in attempts to save my list, I'm not sure if I'm just wasting all my energy and stress. Please give me some insight. This has been a difficult process. Derek scissor hand (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look at it yet. I won't have time until later today (at least 10 hours from now). I don't think the issue is just the number of red links, but I'll say more after I look at it. Please just wait for me to get back to you. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, Auntof6! Angela Maureen (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Angela. Same to you! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Borderline intelligence, Cognitive impairment marked complex

The two articles I created were marked complex. I thought I had simplified them. Please give out the complex words, if there are any. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

One complex word is cognitive. There were others as well. I'll note them on the articles' talk pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Syntactic Structures

Could you please take a look at my revised version : User:Zaheen/Syntactic Structures ? Zaheen (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also invite you to look at the easiness/readabiliy statistics of the article that I have found and mentioned in the talk page : User talk:Zaheen/Syntactic Structures Zaheen (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I will look at it when I have time, but that won't be until tomorrow (by tomorrow I mean Wednesday, even though it's very early on Wednesday here).--Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I have tried as much as I could to simplify the article and address all the complex words you mentioned. If you think the article is in a good enough shape, could you kindly consider putting it back in the main namespace? I don't think I can spend any more time or energy working on this for a week or more. And I am not comfortable putting it back on the main ns, lest it gets QDed by somebody again. Thank you very much for all your suggestions. Zaheen (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I will look at it as soon as I can. I'm sorry I didn't have time yesterday as I thought I would. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

word incident changed into something else

The word incident gets changed into something else whenever I use it. Please clarify. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Without knowing which article(s) you're referring to, all I can say is that it's not a simple word.
I know I've suggested this before, but it would be helpful if you got a little familiar with the lists of Basic English words. You don't have to memorize them -- I certainly don't have them memorized! -- but it would help those of us who patrol your articles if you had more of a feel for what's simple and what's not. That is, after all, the basis of what this Wikipedia is about. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
For example, the article about the 2016 Oakland warehouse fire: incident was changed to fire. Angela Maureen (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case, not only was incident a complex word, but it's not as specific as fire. Part of simple language is using words which are not only simple, but which are as specific as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Sometimes in "regular" English, incident is used for one or both of two reasons:
  • As a language hedge when something is not (yet) proven (like in the case of a murder, where someone may be reluctant to call it a "murder" until that is proved in court).
  • To capture a group of events into a single bunch (like if someone shot people, set something on fire, and painted graffiti all at once), in which case calling the whole thing an incident may be simpler than describing the whole event every time.
If you ever have a situation where it would definitely be simpler to use the word incident, and where you don't think there is a better choice available, ping me. I'll either try to find you a better example or I will write a definition for Simple English Wiktionary that you can link to. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

75.166.106.158 is constantly vandalizing

Can someone please block these users? They are vandalizing multiple pages, and they accused me of vandalizing. Can someone help? Angela Maureen (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

being an admin

When I become an administrator someday, could you teach me how to semi-protect, block users and whatever else? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If not me, then someone else would help you with it. Most of it is done via options that only the admins can see. For example, across the top of an article page, where you see tabs like page, talk, change this page, history, etc., the admins have additional tabs including delete, protect (or change protection if the page is already protected), and d-batch. When we look at a user page, there are options in the tools box (at the left side of the page) to block the user and to change their user groups.
The thing that's just as important to learn, though, is when to use those tools, when not to, and how to decide the variable things like length of blocks. For example, we don't normally semi-protect user talk pages, so in this case I had to evaluate whether to make an exception because of all the vandalism that was happening to your talk page, my talk page, and the IP's talk page. It was a judgement call, and to make it I had to be familiar with both our local rules and Wikipedia's rules.
I think I remember seeing some help pages that explained how to do various admin tasks; if I remember where it was, I'll let you know. I don't even know all of them myself yet! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Auntof6

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays! Angela Maureen (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Angela. Same to you! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

context tag

What do context tags mean when you add them to articles? Do context tags mean something? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they mean something. The text that appears on pages with the template explains it: "The introduction to this article does not have enough information for people unfamiliar with the subject." An example would be if there were an article about "Foo", and all it said was "Foo was discovered in 1950." That wouldn't tell you anything about what "Foo" actually is. Even if the subject of an article is very well known, the first sentence in the article should say what it is, before saying anything else about it. Here are more examples:
  • You wouldn't start an article about the Eiffel Tower by saying only "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris." You have to mention that it's a tower, even though that's pretty obvious from the fact that its name includes the word "tower".
  • You wouldn't start an article about radium by saying only "Radium was discovered in 1898." You'd have to mention that it's a chemical element.
Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning for comment

I saw your request on the Administrators' noticeboard re: the uncivil comment on Talk:Star yesterday. I assume the warning I gave in reply last night was insufficient. I probably should have warned him on his talk page. I learned only this morning this wasn't the first such comment he made against another member of the community. I didn't know that at the time. Do you want me to correct this and issue the warning? It was my oversight. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed a bias here. Did you consider the comment made to me was not intended to be neutral, but quite saucy? Zedshort (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No, not in the least. It was clear, accurate and to the point. Rus793 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It also appears that Zedshort has had issues on En.Wiki also, see [10] and their are old blocks on En.Wiki for Personal Attacks / Harrasment [11]. This appears to be a developing pattern, and worth keeping a close eye on. -- Enfcer (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I was trying to have an honest discussion, but it didn't seem to be going well. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Umm, no you weren't trying to be "honest", you were being snarky. Your advice to get lost was couched in a clever way but will never be taken well by anyone. Zedshort (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

how do I explain "Saran Wrap" on my recent article

You said "explain Saran Wrap". However can I do that? I'm trying to find ways to explain Saran Wrap. Why do I have to explain Saran Wrap? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I just meant to say what it is. You could explain it as being a brand of plastic wrap. It needs to be explained because our readers could include people from countries where Saran Wrap is not sold.
Actually, I found something in en:Saran (plastic) about Saran Wrap which says that it no longer contains PVDC. The company's website says that it is now made from polyethylene. Apparently, the enwiki article on plastic wrap is out of date. I also am unable to bring up the page you used for your reference: did you check it and see that it stated the fact you used it for? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I did everything you asked me to. Is the article ready for the mainspace? Angela Maureen (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) May I add: It is probably better to use non-brand-name descriptions for items rather than brand names in most cases. As Auntof6 said above, many brand names do not appear everywhere in the world. And even in places where the brand name appears, using it is actually probably too promotional for most purposes here. Exceptions would probably be where the brand name is (a) truly global, and (b) is a far-better known or understood name for the item than its non-branded name. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
In most cases, yes, but in this case, it apparently was just that brand that used the material being mentioned. If it's a noteworthy exception like that, it's reasonable to mention the brand. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@September 1988: Not yet. I'll put more comments on the talk page. --Auntof6 (talk)
@Auntof6: I explained Saran further, and changed the words to singular. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I replied on the article talk page. Let's keep the discussion there. I'm watching that page, so I'll see any message you leave there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)