User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2019

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

Contents

WAM Postcard collection

Dear organiser,

Thanks for your patience, I apologise for the delay in sending the Google form for address collection. Please share this form and the message with the participants who created 4 or more than 4 articles during WAM. We will send the reminders directly to the participants from next time, but please ask the participants to fill the form before January 10th 2019.

Things to do:

  1. If you're the only organiser in your language edition, Please accept your article, keeping the WAM guidelines in mind.
  2. Please report the local Wikipedia Asian Ambassador (who has most accepted articles) on this page, if the 2nd participants have more than 30 accepted articles, you will have two ambassadors.
  3. Please update the status of your language edition in this page.


Note: This form is only accessed by WAM international team. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. If you have problems accessing the google form, you can use Email This User to send your address to my Email. Thanks :) --Saileshpat using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

To follow up, have you sent in your address details? I plan on updating the status page; BRPever and I have already sent in our details. Hiàn (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hiàn: Yes, I have. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Hiàn (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Season's Greetings, Christmas Card from 320 Ranch.jpg
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Auntof6/Archives, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Davey. Same to you! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Auntof6, You're welcome and thanks so much, Thanks for all you do here and thanks for always helping me even when I can be an idiot at times!, I hope you and yours have a Happy and Healthy New Year, Take care, –Davey2010Talk 19:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year 2019, Auntof6! Angela Maureen (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Angela. Same to you! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard

Can I Interview you for TheWikiWizard? Thanks.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: I guess so. What would you want to ask about? And what is your vision for TheWikiWizard? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll probably ask you some Questions about being an admin, your favorite tv show, etc. My vison for TWW is to hopefully publish a newspaper like the simple news, however, unlike the main TWW, this TWW will only be published 6 times a year. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 23:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

notability tag on Gunsmoke

What's with the notability notice on the Gunsmoke page? I used a reference for notability, yet somehow the article doesn't claim notability. I just don't get that! Whatever do I have to do? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This is moot now, because I redirected the article to the one we already had on Gunsmoke, but I will explain. The notice says "Please help by adding reliable sources about the subject and describing why it is notable" (italics mine). Nothing in the article said why the show is notable. References alone don't show notability. They have to support statements of notability: the article needs a statement of something that shows notability. The reference in the article was for a statement that the show had a different name in the UK, and having a different name doesn't make the show notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (movie)

The page was created on 22 February 2018, and for 10 months nothing useful was put in it. Rarely anybody edited it. May you edit that page? --74.105.247.66 (talk) 4 January 2019

I redirected it to the page about the book. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

your holiday season

How were your Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. How were yours? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to Organize Wiki Loves Love 2019

WLL Subtitled Logo subtitled b (transparent).svg

Wiki Loves Love (WLL) is an International photography competition of Wikimedia Commons to subject love testimonials happening in the month of February 2019.

The primary goal of the competition is to document love testimonials through human cultural diversity such as monuments, ceremonies, snapshot of tender gesture, and miscellaneous objects used as symbol of love; to illustrate articles in the worldwide free encyclopedia Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects. February is around the corner and Wiki Loves Love team invites you to organize and promote WLL19 in your country and join hands with us to celebrate love and document it on Wikimedia Commons. The theme of 2019 is Festivals, ceremonies and celebrations of love.

To organize Wiki Loves Love in your region, sign up at WLL Organizers page. You can also simply support and spread love by helping us translate the commons page in your local language which is open for translation.

The contest starts runs from 1-28 February 2019. Independent from if there is a local contest organised in your country, you can help by making the photo contest Wiki Loves Love more accessible and available to more people in the world by translating the upload wizard, templates and pages to your local language. See for an overview of templates/pages to be translated at our Translations page.

Imagine...The sum of all love!

Wiki Loves Love team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: January 2019

what? I am just putting some info.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74A (talkcontribs) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 74A, unless you have a reliable source that indicates this is the case then your edit wasn't constructive. Besides that the enwiki article seems to indicate that "Threshold" is the correct code name. (side note, please sign your posts) Hiàn (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My edits revert

Why have you reverted my edits in Wikipedia:Vandalism page? HutheMeow

@HutheMeow: Because you changed the coding to a more complex style, instead of the standard style we use. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

TWW

Hi! If you don't mind. Please answer the Questions for the newspaper Here. Thanks! --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! By the Way, The Incredible Dr.Pol is also my favorite TV show! --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 00:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Junior Day

MLK Junior Day is almost here. What do you think about this holiday, Auntof6? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

act vs performance

On one article I created, act was changed to performance. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to tell me what article you're referring to. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Susan Oliver article; that's what I mean. Angela Maureen (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The work an actor does in a play, movie, etc. is called a performance, not an act. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

references template vs reflist template

The references template was changed to reflist template. What is the reason for that? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Either one can specify where the references should go. Right now the way you had it is the basic way to do that, but that can change when technology changes (which it can do at any time). Because of that, we try to have as little hardcoded markup in articles as possible. Putting it in the template and using the template would let us update things much more easily than if we have to change individual articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple Talk OTRS

I noticed you removed the message Vermont posted without providing a reason. Before I restore it, I wanted to check with you and see if there was a reason. Operator873talkconnect 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I already restored it. It was an accidental revert. My tablet has been a little erratic lately: sometimes the screen jumps around and I hit something other than what I intended. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries at all! I thought it was a bit odd which is why I wanted to ask you first. Thank you! Operator873talkconnect 23:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Descriptive header

Hi,

Hope you are doing fine. On the 01.11.2018 at 00:35 you made changes to my "User:Sergeismart/sandbox" page. Can you, please, tell me why you did that (without my permission)? And another question (if I may) - you know on the ordinary Wikipedia (i.e. not on the Simple English Wikipedia but on ordinary one) I also wanted to publish the same article about King Richard I - but they refused to do it because I did not want to have it mixed with other people's stuff (about King Richard). Anyway that article on ordinary Wikipedia was drafted at the address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:King_Richard_I_Of_England_-_Richard_The_Lionheart. Now I visited my account there at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England - and it is completely different stuff there - not the stuff I put in there last summer (and there is no record of my draft in the "View history" section). Can you (perhaps) tell me how it all came about?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Sergei.

(Sergeismart (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

@Sergeismart: I made the change to your sandbox page because user pages are not allowed to include content categories. This is documented at Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? in the paragraph that starts "Do not put your userpage or subpages, including work-in-progress articles, into categories used by Wikipedia articles."
As far as the draft/article on enwiki, you probably need to ask someone there. However, you say you didn't want to have what you wrote mixed with other people's stuff: anyone can edit any article, and no one owns any article. That is a policy that is documented at en:Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Besides that, the reason your draft was rejected wasn't that you didn't want what you wrote mixed with other people's edits. It was because draftspace (at least as far as I understand it) is for working on drafts of new articles (articles about subjects that we don't already have an article for). Since an article about Richard I already exists there, using draftspace isn't the appropriate way to go. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Cohaf's talk page.
Message added 02:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I apologies for the poor word choices but there's significant points I would like to clarify on my statement, more details on my talkpage. Usually I think a ping is enough but for this I think is better to leave a talkback. Thanks and Best Regards, Cohaf (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

around vs in vs at

Recent articles I created had the word around changed to in or at. Here are the following examples:

Is there something with the word around? Am I not using the word properly? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The word around is less specific that either at or in. At 4:00 pm gives an exact time, whereas around 4:00 pm means the time might have been 4:00 pm or might have been a different time near 4:00 pm. In 1999 means sometime during that specific year, whereas around 1999 means the year might been 1999 but it might been a different year close to 1999. Since the original enwiki articles gave specific times, we should keep them specific here. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Auntof6. Check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 02:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: I don't think confidentiality is required for this, so I'm answering here. I don't think that page violates Wikipedia:User page. That includes the information you removed, which I don't think needed to be removed. If you want to pursue this, feel free to take it to RFD: I don't think there's a QD option that covers your concerns. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Jew (section)

Hello, You have recently corrected this part of another contributor. Arriving to patrol, I found this sentence complicated. I changed it as follows:

  • original: "When the Jews were made into slaves in Egypt, God chose Moses to be an ambassador for him (God) and to plead for the case to free the 12 tribes of Israel."
  • modified: "When the Jews were turned into slaves in Egypt, God chose Moses to be his ambassador (God) and pleaded for the liberation of the 12 tribes of Israel."

Could you tell me if you see an improvement? Sincerly. --Eihel (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel:I don't think the modified version is better. In fact, the modified version has incorrect grammar.
  • The Jews weren't "turned into" slaves, they became slaves.
  • In the second clause, it sounds like God did two things: 1) chose Moses to be his ambassador and 2) pleaded for the libreation of the tribes. The word God in parentheses doesn't make sense in the modified version.
Besides that, liberation is a more complex word than free.
How about this: "When the Jews were made slaves in Egypt, God told Moses to ask for them to be freed." --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I will modify. Thanks for the help. Codially. --Eihel (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving cats in redirected categories

It keeps amusing me but sometimes you are too good clearing lists. You keep moving stuff that is waiting for bots to deal with it so we can't see the bots are working before we let the bots loose without people watching them. I keep redirecting categories and leaving them but there is a 7 day cooling period on such redirecting (incase people change their minds) before bots will move the articles and you always seem to move them before the cooling period is done. It is just funny cause you are out botting the bots. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I know that bots take care of that, but I didn't know about the 7-day thing. I don't always clear redirected categories. I just did these because the target categories showed up in the unused categories list, which I monitor. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah the cool down I think is just something that the main wikibot code added in so that bots wouldn't war with each other if people kept changing the redirect back and forth. I wasn't saying you did anything wrong. Just that its amusing because it has happened a few times lately. I will remember next time to move one article so it won't show up on your radar. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks. I didn't take it as you saying I did something wrong. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Either way looks like my bot is doing it automatically now, as well as archiving daily over night now. So finally got the talk page archiving being consistent again. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day 2019

Happy Valentine's Day Auntof6! Angela Maureen (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline QD Colby

Hi, I see that you reverted my request for QD saying that "previous deletions were QD, but there must have been a successful RFD to use this QD option". However, it did go to discussed deletion. Here. Sorry I added the wrong URL before. Not sure where the archived RfD discussions are these days. This editor just added an initial. So, please either unrevert my QD request or act on it. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gotanda: The RfD you are referring to was closed out as a QD Criteria not a completed deletion discussion, that makes the QD request you made it under invalid. If the RfD had gone through then it would have been correct, but since it was ended early under a different QD Criteria it was not a valid request to delete as recreated material. If there is another valid QD reason you can feel free to make it under or if you feel it doesn't but has other deletion reasons please take it to RfD -- Enfcer (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to ask again, but this comes up. I nominated for QD. It was declined. I nominated for RFD and it was deleted but since the deleting editor Vermont cited QD criteria it was not a discussed deletion even though at RfD? If Vermont had not cited QD criteria would it then have been a discussed deletion? I'll let this go now as I guess they have changed it a bit, but it really is confusing. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gotanda: I know it can be a little confusing, but you have to see how the deletion discussion was closed out in this case the deletion discussion did not conclude because another Admin reviewed it and found a Copyvio reason so there was no need to go through with the discussion. Also just because a QD was declined under one criteria, does not mean another one is not appropriate. When we review a QD we do not always see something under another view, which could cause it to be deleted. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gotanda: It was a copyright violation. My deletion didn't have anything to do with the validity of content in the article or the notability of the person. There was no discussion, and the RfD is not citable. Vermont (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

using certain terms

Every time I use as a result of, the term gets changed to other terms. Also, there had been deadly and destructive storm surges from hurricanes was changed to storm surges caused by hurricanes killed people and caused damage. For what particular reason? I thought these terms were simple. Angela Maureen (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The answer is a combination of things. Sometimes the words aren't simple. Sometimes they are simple (that is, they are on the basic English word list), but there's a clearer or even simpler way to say things.
When we talk about writing simple English, part of it is referring to the lists of simple words and using only those as much as possible. Another part is knowing how to use those words in simple ways and knowing how to phrase things in a way that's clear and understandable to people who don't know English well. For example, the word result is on the combined wordlist, but the word because is on the basic list, so it's simpler. Sometimes it's also good not to use multiple words, such as as a result of, when you can use fewer. (On the other hand, sometimes you need to use more words to say something in simple words.) When you're translating from regular English, you just have to know how to rephrase things without changing the meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

why is Optima marked complex

The article Optima was marked complex. What are the complex terms and words in the article? Which words need changing? Angela Maureen (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@September 1988: I could give you a list, but I'd rather help you learn how to figure it out for yourself. I know over the years I've given you ways that you can check text to see how complex text is. Have you tried any of them? In the meantime, I'm going to remove your patroller right again because your own articles need to be patrolled. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: But I thought the words were simple in those three font-related articles. Those ways you're giving me don't seem to help me figure things out for myself. I have tried them. They hardly work for me. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I can think of two ways I've suggested in the past:
  • Using the word lists: I admit it's not easy to use them to check an individual article, but maybe just spending time looking at them would start to give you an idea of the kind of thing that's considered simple.
  • Using an automated tool.
If you can give me an idea of why these methods don't work for you, maybe I can think of a way to help you use them. The only other way I can think of right now is to imagine an average eighth grader reading the article, and think about whether they would understand everything in it (we aim for an eighth grade reading level).
If you don't think any of that would work for you, can you think of something that would? If you're going to write here, you need to be able to write simple language.. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Auntof6: I looked at the Basic Compound and Basic Combined lists; the words typeface and x-height are not in those areas. But I linked typeface. What else can I do? Angela Maureen (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see x-height in the Optima article. Which article are you referring to?
By the way, you don't need to ping someone when you leave a message on their talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The articles to which I'm referring are Times New Roman and Franklin Gothic. Angela Maureen (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, to start with, you could address x-height, since you already see that it's not in the lists. Then see if you can find more complex words or phrases. I'll give you a place to start: in the first paragraph of Times New Roman I see six complex words/phrases that I consider complex and which are neither linked or explained. In the second paragraph, I see two. In the third paragraph, I see three, including x-height, and the sentence structure could be simpler. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I linked legibility, removed branch and simplified the sentence structure. I also changed designed to made on the first paragraph, and used on the third. Is that OK? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Marriage/doc

There appears to be an error I am having trouble to fix. If you look at the template:marriage and template:marriage/doc it has a notification that a user has nominated it to be deleted however nothing has progressed. I tried deleting it because I have doubts that it is credible, but cannot find the deletion template. It's messing up other article's inforboxes like Ronald Reagan, Bernie Sanders, Fred Rogers etc. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: That's not the only template affected: look at Template:IPA. I suspect this has something to do with either a piece of vandalism we haven't found or the mass template refreshing from enwiki. This kind of issue should be brought up at Simple talk to get everyone who thinks they can help looking at it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Huelagus/MA-Livelihood still sandboxed

Just wondering whether this should be deleted rather than sitting as a pseudo-article in user: namespace. Billinghurst (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: We sometimes delete old userspace drafts, but I think we've only done that if either:
  • The draft isn't a viable article for some reason (for example, it's promotional, it doesn't show notability, or we already have an article on the subject that wouldn't be improved by what's in the draft) or
  • The draft hasn't been touched in a long time and the creator hasn't edited here in a long time.
This page hasn't been meaningfully edited in just over a year (my change to the stub template doesn't count), but in the past I think we've waited longer than that. I put a userspace draft template on it so that it will eventually show up as a stale draft. Still, feel free to do an RFD if you want: that's how we deal with these. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

why is Optima marked still complex

I just recently simplified certain parts of Optima, explained certain areas and linked some particular words. How is the article still complex? It doesn't look complex to me. Are there any "complex" words in the article?" 'Cause I doubt that the article is complex. Angela Maureen (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@September 1988: Words/phrases that could be simplified, linked, or explained: subtle swelling, terminals, strokes, capitals, serve, set (in this context), regular weight, oblique
Also, you linked the word humanist separately from sans serif typeface, although those terms in enwiki are together in a single link. It now links to humanism, but that is incorrect. The word humanist as used here doesn't refer to the philosophy of humanism, but to a style of typefaces. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I corrected most of the "complex" words. Terminals is already explained early in the article. Oblique has been linked. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You didn't correct most of the complex words (and please don't put complex in quotes: that comes across as snarky). You only corrected a few of them: I've struck out the corrected ones in the list above. Other comments:
  • Since we don't have an article or section for humanist sans serif typefaces, it would be better not to include humanist in the link text.
  • You explain terminals, but not strokes, which is used in that explanation. Stroke has several meanings, so this should be clarified.
--Auntof6 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed humanist from the article. I also explained strokes further. I'm gonna need help with the other words/terms. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK, I simplified the article. Please, please look at what I did to understand things you sometimes need to do to simplify, and ask any questions you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Times New Roman and Franklin Gothic

In Times New Roman I simplified the wording in the article. I also linked legibility. In Franklin Gothic, I did some simplifying. But is Franklin Gothic really complex? I removed x-height from these two articles. Angela Maureen (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Indexing User page.

Hi, I'm a newbie. I was surprised to see my user page edited by using an option offered by the wikipedia editor. I did not know the cause and I was just testing the configuration options, examining the wikipedia structure and seeing what can be done by looking at the pages of other users.

Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience.

Bgmaster (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oxygen

Since you are very good at simplifying, I would appreciate it if you would look over the lead section of Oxygen, which I just simplified from en:Oxygen. IWI (chat) 17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And now wider parts of the article too. IWI (chat) 23:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll try, but it would take me a while to get through it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If you don't have time then don't worry, of course. IWI (chat) 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Strike

The user I striked out was a sockpuppet who is now blocked. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to strike it out? IWI (chat) 13:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would just add a note explaining that. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sexual arousal page removed from Sex (disambiguation)

For some reason, the article Sexual arousal was removed from the recent page I created. Can you clarify that? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@September 1988: On a disambiguation page, each entry should be something you can refer to by the term indicated in the name of the page. In this example, each item in the list should be something you can call simply "sex". Sexual intercourse fits that, but sexual arousal doesn't: you don't call sexual arousal just "sex". That's why the enwiki page has sexual arousal listed in the See also section, not in the main part of the page.
By the way, speaking of the enwiki page, it would be helpful if you link pages you create to their enwiki counterparts by using Wikidata. You don't have to go to Wikidata to do that. If you don't know how to do that, see User:Auntof6/How to#Interwiki language links for new pages. Just be sure the pages you link are exact matches. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

why should dates not be linked

Hey Auntof6: For what reason should dates not be linked? Can you clarify that? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It's generally not helpful. Links are used to direct people to more information about the topic they're reading about. The article for a given year or date usually doesn't do that. Besides that, the Manual of Style says this:
It is not necessary to add wikilinks to all dates, like this: "[[25 March]] [[2004]]" or "[[February 10]]"). Only add a wikilink if you think the reader will find useful information at the date-related article you have linked to.
I strongly recommend that you spend some time getting familiar with the Manual of Style. It contains that answers to a lot of questions that many people have. Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Good job on blocking that vandal

--Dreamlover8 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamlover8: I didn't do anything out of the ordinary. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Dear Auntof6

the URL page sources https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/MrFitWash_(sharing_economy) / https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondrej_Karasek and our User ShiftiaTV as well, you deleted is no spam or scam (Nor we as Shiftia, nor MrFitWash). MrFitWash is legitime website platform from Europe. You can check that by your self! mrfitwash.com . They are really "fresh" but already now covering the whole Germany and growing! English as main language based on their "EU focus" (not Germany only). Nevertheless it is a serious company and no scam! Shiftia is non-goverment organisation on the local base (based on Düsseldorf & Essen, Germany) - > helping here to build their PR (this sharing economy model can provide a lot additional jobs such as DeliveryHero did, we think!) that is why we tried to help (did not receive / nor wanted any payment for that). Yet we as Shiftia group are new in Wikipedia as well, however please do take us as a serious partner and not some teenagers sitting at home trying to build some scam topics! Greetings from Germany

Shiftia Team

Please do recover those websites, you deleted. There has been really no reason for this!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiftiaTV (talkcontribs) 11:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

notability tag on Louise Bourgeois

Why is there a notability tag on Louise Bourgeois? I gave attribution to the article and put several references on the article. Are there no awards? What's wrong with the page? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing showing notability. The references supported the statement that she was an artist and the statement about where she was born, but neither of those things is notable by itself. Just having references doesn't show notability. The references have to support something that shows notability. The awards section you just added shows notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Büttenhardt

Hello. Sorry to bother you. Can you help put the pictures in the rights spots on this page please. I don't know how to do it. Büttenhardt is the page. Thank you. We asked another user to help, but she said to contact an administrator. I found your name on the history. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCee Kind (talkcontribs) 09:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@JayCee Kind: Where do you think they should be? By the way, please remember to sign your messages. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where they should be. It looked wrong to me. Perhaps there is a standard format?JayCee Kind (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just so you are aware this is a sock of Dopenguins. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

148.75.7.93 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Hello! Can I get Something for you?

Wait what?

Yes I know the IP editor who reverted it has also been vandalizing, but how was that edit to money laundering not vandalism? 116.26.108.194 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what I was thinking there. Thanks for catching it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Stars

We have a redundant category:

  • 'Stars by type' and
  • 'Type of stars' have the same pages now, and I suggest 'Type of stars' should be the one deleted or redirected. I'm sure it's best for you to make the decision! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
They aren't redundant, they are two different types of categories, one is a container category for directories of stars by their type. No articles should be in that category, just subcategories filled with specific stars. The other category is Types of stars which would contain articles on types of stars but not the specific stars themselves. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Easter 2019

Hey Auntof6: How was your Easter? Angela Maureen (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


LTA warning

Just wanted to make sure you are aware of users like Rockalilouis, who is one of many socks created by globally banned Projects. I have lost count of how many accounts he has created, but he spams external links across many wikis, preferably topics about Indonesia. Zaxxon0 (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ljupco edits to annoy people, not to spam, and most of his rants are about Rocky Marciano or Wikipedia, specifically targeting Antandrus or a host of other admins. Vermont (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

erasing top part

The top part of Category:Celine Dion songs was erased; it said the category gave out information about songs by that singer. Why was it erased? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Categories don't need a description if the description just repeats information that is given by the category name. The category name already says that it's for Celine Dion songs, and the description (the "top part") didn't say any more than that. Besides that, the description said that the category had information about Celine Dion songs, but that isn't true: categories don't have information about the things they contain, and they don't list them, they just contain them.
By the way, when you refer to a category like this, you need to put a colon between the opening brackets and the word "Category". If you don't, then the page you edit gets put into the category and the category name doesn't display on the page. Look at the change I made to your post to see exactly what I mean. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline QDs

Hi Auntof6,

I saw that you declined my latest request for qd on Fred McLafferty. You are the admin so that is your role. I tend to be quite strict on direct copy-pastes from EnWP that have not been simplified. I think that if people want the complex content, they know where to find it. EnWP does not have any discoverability problem. Complex content here can be a problem though. If young readers or language learners come here and think that what they are reading is simple, but still find it very difficult, that can be demotivating. So, I placed the complex tag there. Copy-pasting is always faster than simplifying, so an imbalance can build up.

Also, I wonder what your views are on copying and pasting without attribution? Sure, admins or other editors may add the attribution later, but that just offloads work onto them/us. QD 12 Obviously breaking copyright law says, "This includes copying from other Wikipedias without proper attribution." Maybe I should have tagged A3 and G12 would you have accepted G12?

Thanks for your time and all your efforts.

--Gotanda (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The article conforms to the requirements for copying text licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0; see the talk page's attribution note. Vermont (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry! My bad. Must have mixed it up with another one. Please accept my apology for taking up your time. --Gotanda (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gotanda: For better or for worse, we allow complex content here if the complex terms are linked. Most of the complex terms were linked in that article, and it was not very long, so I decided to allow it. It is better to simplify, but that can be difficult with technical topics. I agree that complex content here can be a problem, but I don't think that will significantly improve as long as we allow anyone to create articles here. Most people, including some of our long-term editors, don't simplify the language nearly enough, IMO. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Oldrfdfull}}

Hi, Aunt. I tried adding this to Talk:Exotic pet and found it not working. I tried playing around with it for a while and couldn't get it right. (What was missing was the link to the discussion, even in the presence of the |year= parameter.) For the time being I subst-ed it and fixed the talk page manually. I'll see if I have time to get back to it later, but you may wish to have a look, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed it for you, and fixed the result which was no consensus which is technically different than keep. You were missing the page param. -DJSasso (talk)
TY. I thought that the page parameter was allowed to default, but OK. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Spambots

You have repeatedly reverted me on a spambot's userpage, so I have to assume you haven't read or don't know where to find this information but OtillaLindsey1 is a globally locked spambot: 16:39, 6 May 2019 There'sNoTime talk contribs changed status for global account "User:OtiliaLindsey1@global": set locked; unset (none) (Spam-only account: spambot) so please explain how a deletion rationale with {{delete|spam or spambot}} is not a valid rationale? Spambots are subject to global policy. They are not allowed on any wikimedia project and it is a valid tag anywhere. And I'll also note in case it's not abundantly obvious that they are a spambot, they created this dumpster fire. It's important to remove content created by spambots because a.) they are prohibited by Wikimedia and b.) they parse userpages exactly like that to make seemingly innocuous edits to slip past filters and continue to spam. You said I haven't given a valid deletion reason several times today, so please explain what I need to write in a deletion tag that would be appropriate, I can do haikus, sonnets or free verse. Praxidicae (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To be fair we don't typically delete user pages of indefinitely blocked users unless the userpage itself was spam irregardless of if they are a spambot or not. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
My issue is more "no valid reason given" when I explained it pretty clearly and explicitly (it's a spambot.) Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes and that isn't a valid reason to delete a userpage as I just explained. Unless the page was spam itself. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, have fun with your spambots, I guess. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I am just confused why blocked spambots need non spam userpages deleted? If the bots are blocked there is nothing they can do anyway? -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See point B in her initial comment. Vermont (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Right but once blocked that would no longer be an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: I'm not saying the pages shouldn't be deleted. To use quick deletion, however, the page must fit one of the defined QD options. "Spambot" isn't one of those. If the page doesn't exactly fit one of the defined QD criteria, the usual process is to use RFD. If you don't want to do that, you can try asking at the admins' noticeboard, but you might be asked to use RFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

changes needed at Template:Uw-error3

Can someone please change the protection from full-protection to semi-protection on Template:Uw-error3 so that autoconfirmed users, not just admins, can add needed changes to the wording on the page? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tropical Storm Angela: Changes in that wording should be discussed first, so I think it can stay fully protected. What change is needed? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Starting category African American women

Should I refrain from adding any new women categories while the request for deletion of Categories for women by occupation is in process? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I would refrain from adding any new categories for women by occupation until the RfD is closed. The issue with women by ethnicity is different, but I don't see a reason for separating the genders there, either. Is there a particular reason you see for separating them, other than because we can?
I look at it this way: if there's a valid reason in real life to see women as different for a reason related to the issue, it might be reasonable to categorize them separately. For example, when the issue is sports, women often compete separately from men, and their events are often different (for example, only women do the balance beam in gymnastics) or modifed (for example, women's tennis matches have fewer sets than men's) from those that men compete in. If it's something where we shouldn't or don't separate the genders in real life, then we probably don't need separate categories here, either.
Anywhere that we have categories specifically for women, we should have corresponding categories for men. To do otherwise can be seen as discriminatory and/or marginalizing the women.
Keep in mind that this is my opinion. As the RfD proceeds, we may find that the consensus doesn't agree with me. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. Just to let you know I posted a general question in this regard at Wikipedia_talk:Categories#Deletion_discussions_guidelines. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, re your comment:"Anywhere that we have categories specifically for women, we should have corresponding categories for men":
If women categories are not wp:diffused it is not generally neccessary to also create a men's categories. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Notifications of possible deletion

Just wondering if it is not common to notify the editor who started a page when the page is facing a possible deletion. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I believe so. We have a discussion about this with regard to QDs at Simple Talk. Did I neglect to do a notification? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Auntof6/Archives/2019, thanks for pinging me and for mentioning a discussion regarding wp:QD on wp:Simple Talk (which is probably archived at this point).
As far as notification of intent to delete is concerned, I don't think you notified through user talkpages any of those who started categories that are now up for dicussion at wp:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2019/Categories_for_women_by_occupation. Yes you pinged them but IMIO a notification through a user talkpage is of paramount importance to make more editors aware. Also, one of those is not currently active and may not log in, so will not be aware of this important discussion.
I believe the opinions of those who do not regularly engage in those discussions should be actively encouraged.
Don't want to overly burden you and wonder if this whole thread should be moved to the talkpage of the appropriate wp article. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: That discussion was still there when I replied to you, but, yes, it has now been archived. You can see it here.
As for RfDs, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion says this:
"Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage."
Note that this says "can be done by", not should or must. I don't know that a user, whether active or inactive, is more likely to see a talk page message than they are to be notified of a ping. I usually use the RfD function that leaves a talk page message, but that wasn't possible with this group nomination. Because of all that, I chose to notify by pinging.
That being said, I could see an argument being made to make that language more specific. IMO, such an discussion would be best at Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion, where you recently posted something about this very topic. When starting such discussions on the relevant talk page, it's recommended to publicize them at Simple talk because few people would see them otherwise. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Take Care

Red Apple

An apple for you. Wish you speedy recovery. :) --Cohaf (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Take care Auntof6

Hey Auntof6: I noticed you recently had eye surgery. I hope you get well. Angela Maureen (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I tried to answer your question but there was an edit conflict which I was not able to resolve. I will try another time. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Auntof6!

Hey Auntof6, how was your eye surgery? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It went perfectly, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Tehran Regional Arbitration Centre

what's problem with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali00am (talkcontribs) 04:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ali00am: User:Zaxxon0 proposed it for deletion because it seemed to be advertising. I suggest you ask that user what the exact issues were. The only issue I am addressing is that the QD template may not be removed unless the reason for the QD is addressed.
And by the way, please sign your talk page posts. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

A huge huge thank you for deleting the useless page "Leiria"! It's not good when people think it's funny to add useless pages, having no meaning. Simplex Simpleton (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

recent word change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taliban Hendrix MS13

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

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

Franklin's lost expedition

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

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

Template:Infobox aircraft

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

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

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

my computer

My computer is malfunctioning, Auntof6. That's why it may have reverted your change. But I will take it to the computer repair place to see what's wrong with it. Angela Maureen (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tropical Storm Angela: No problem. I know I've accidentally reverted changes. You might be interested to know that there is now an ask-me-again option that makes you confirm that you want to do a rollback. I've activated it everywhere that I have the rollback right. If you want to use it, it's in preferences on the the Appearance tab, under Advanced options. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)