Jump to content

User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2019

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Hiàn: Yes, I have. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Hiàn (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

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)[reply]
Thanks, Davey. Same to you! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Happy New Year!

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

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


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

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? -- (talk) 4 January 2019

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

your holiday season

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

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

Invitation to Organize Wiki Loves Love 2019

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)[reply]

Re: January 2019

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Descriptive header


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.


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

@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)[reply]


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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Auntof6. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 02:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
I will modify. Thanks for the help. Codially. --Eihel (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. I didn't take it as you saying I did something wrong. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day 2019

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good job on blocking that vandal

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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? (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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


We have a redundant category:

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)[reply]

Easter 2019

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]


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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, have fun with your spambots, I guess. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See point B in her initial comment. Vermont (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right but once blocked that would no longer be an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Take Care

Red Apple

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Hey Auntof6!

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

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

Tehran Regional Arbitration Centre

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
Thank You. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]


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

@SimmeD: I don't think there's a specific rule about that. That kind of things can get out of date, and it isn't the official way of telling what rights someone has. If you want to see what rights someone actually has, you can either click the verify link in the user box or go to Special:UserRights and put in their user name.
I wouldn't worry too much about what people have on their user pages, but if you really think something on another user's page needs to be changed, you could ask the user or an admin to take care of it: editing someone else's user page is actually a bigger offense than having inaccurate user boxes. Pinging @Djsasso: because he maintains the list of active and inactive admins, in case he wants to consider updating user boxes when admins lose their rights, but I don't really see this as a big deal. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. That was more because many of the Scandinavian Wikis have the rule. I also believe that English Wikipedia prohibits people from displaying rights on their userpage that they do not have. The reason why users should not display wrong rights on its user page on wikis is because new users may be confused. But all wikis have their own rules, and it doesn't sound like this rule is active here :-) - You learn something new every day. Thanks for reply --SimmeD (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its usually not that big a deal in cases like this one where he just lost his rights through inactivity so hasn't really been around to fix his userpage. If it was someone trying to trick people into thinking they were an admin or something, that would be a bigger deal. But yeah if I think about it I will start removing userboxes when people have their flags removed. -DJSasso (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is vitally important to know who has Admin rights on a certain Wikimedia site. Not only for the benefit of new users but for all users. I am surprised that the Wikimedia foundation has not found a way to incorporate this info in the username itself. Until this happens there is a way to list all admins using special: Ottawahitech (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example where Users would want to check if a user has Admin rights:
Since AFD discussions on enwiki can be closed by non-admins (only in certain circumstances) I thought I would check to see if the closer of w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fram controversy is an admin. It was simple to determine - all it took was one click that took me to his Userpage, where at the bottom he shows up as belonging to w:Category:Wikipedia administrators. Would it not be nice to do this for all Admins? Thanks in advance for any responses, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All our admins are listed at WP:ADMINS. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naming consistency in categories

Hi auntof6,

I think you are interested in this topic: Category_talk:Canadian_companies#Name_consistency. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


2)On the page history ,you almost are the main contributor.The last edit was on June 15.Right Before someone asked it to be deleted.Suddenly the link was blank too,what do you think ?

After I saw your profile,I believe that on 15 June 2019 the link that you didn’t regard it as dead link was not dead.

The other person who put the whole article is new here,Please do not ignore him.I like the way he was asking you to wrote the article in your neutral tone as usual.

He probably want you to be able to easily use sources in the article.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F581:888B:9EFF:5201 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get Well Soon

Do not worry about my questions,take care.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:44CE:21C9:6A55:6804 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting us @2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:44CE:21C9:6A55:6804 (Auntof6 is taking a partial wikibreak while recovering from surgery) Ottawahitech (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked and need help

I was block back in February by WIPR with no reason added to the block, I was prohibited from editing anonymously but also prohibited from creating an account.

I don’t know whether you can help but I just wanted to see

(I believe I was blocked because I deleted a section of text that had no evidence to back it)

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2 2600:387:2:811:0:0:0:3E (talk)

You were never blocked? Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked because someone else was using a close IP address to you, or you were trying to evade your block. Nigos (talk · contribs) 07:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly they were blocked on en.wiki and not simple.wiki. We don't have anything to do with their blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz Girlz Really Rock

Hi Auntof6/Archives/2019,

(Not sure if I should ask this here or at wp:Simple talk). I saw that you were involved in the deletion of Bratz Girlz Really Rock. I would like to read the wp:rfd that led to this deletion. What is the simplest way of locating this deletion discussion?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Do a search in the Wikipedia namespace for pages that have that title in the page name. Here's a search string you could use:
intitle:/Bratz Girlz/
That search turns up two results. Apparently an article for a video game was also deleted. For your convenience, here are the two results:
Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category query

Surely "Category:Dominica people" is ungrammatical? "Dominican people" is normal, and follows other cases such as "Category:Greek people" etc. Likewise "Dominican Republic people" -- why so? We don't say "Greek Republic people". Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross: I agree, but that's how enwiki has it, so that's what I went with. I think to avoid confusion with Dominica and the Dominican Republic, we'd have to say "People of <foo>" anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

computer not functioning properly

Sorry if I haven't been on Simple Wikipedia lately. My computer isn't functioning well. I'm gonna get a new computer before September. I know that computers ain't perfect. But neither are humans. I'll be back soon on the Simple Wikipedia. Till then, you take care. Angela Maureen (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unsupported parameters

i see you are taking care of unsupported template parameters. while you're at it can you handle {{tl}} too? it only supports one parameter even though people constantly try to use two or more. could you either remove those second parameters or edit Template:tl to support more than one? (it's fully protected so i can't edit it myself) Laptop Fizz (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laptop Fizz: I might be able to do that another time, but it's not in the scope of what I'm working on right now (infobox parameters, mostly). If you want, you could use the template's sandbox to add code to dump those pages into a category so they can be found easily. That would make our template different from enwiki's, though, so you might want to run it by the community first.
I also see that there's another template, {{tlwp}} (tl with parameters?), that accepts parameters, so these multiple-parameter uses of the other template might be able to be changed to that template. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "template sandbox"? Creating Template:tl/sandbox? But all the pages are using template:tl so it wouldn't work. Laptop Fizz (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laptop Fizz: Yes, by creating that page. I don't mean to change all the pages that currently use the template: we definitely wouldn't want to do that. It would just be to test the changes. Then you would do the following:
  1. Find a page that passes more than one parameter to {{tl}} (or create that situation on any page, just for testing, without saving the test change).
  2. Edit that page and change the code to use the sandbox. For example, if the code is {{tl|templatename|parm1}}, you would change it to {{tl/sandbox|templatename|parm1}}.
  3. Without saving the change, preview the page and see if it does what you want. If not, make the necessary changes to the sandbox and try again. When it does what you want, cancel out of the edit.
Those steps are the way to test changes to any template. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well if {{tlwp}} is a thing wouldn't it be best to just use that? Or are you suggesting that {{tlwp}} should be deleted? Computer Fizz (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should use {{tlwp}} when we want the parameters to show. I'm suggesting changing {{tl}} so that when a page passes it too many parameters it will add a maintenance category to the page so that we can find it and fix the code. If you haven't worked on templates before, don't feel you have to be the one to do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i've never made any complicated templates before. But i gotta start at some point so i'll try this. Computer Fizz (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think i got it to work, can you double-check and copy my changes over if it does? Computer Fizz (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it recognizes when there's an extra parameter, but it shouldn't display an error on the page. It should just add the error category. Also, the code you add should be before the documentation template, not after. By the way, we don't need to create the error category yet. I deleted the category because we haven't run this by the community yet, and because it should have a more explanatory name than you gave it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed those two issues, good now? although i didn't change the category name, will ask for one on the simple talk post (or whereever this'll go). Computer Fizz (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that looks good! When the category is created, I'm thinking it would be good to include a hatnote suggesting using tlwp instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hii, can you grant me confirmed right? i want use twinkle to revert vandalism. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CptViraj: No, we don't usually do that. You will be autoconfirmed after your account is four days old and you have made at least ten changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, please check Keeping Up Appearances. See page history. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to check? The IP hasn't done three reverts yet -- three changes, yes, but not three reverts. You also haven't warned them, which is preferred before blocking. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Hi. I'm on a bit of a Wikibreak right now, not so much from here as from Meta and Incubator, and mainly due to my frustration on some LangCom issues. So mostly I don't want to sign in under my regular name for the time being. I'm not entirely hiding, as you'll see, but I am trying to keep a lower profile for the moment.

I've had this second account elsewhere for a while, but have just activated it here. Would you mind helping me with the following?

  • Add {{User alternative account name|SJ81}} to my regular user page, just above {{userboxbottom}}. (I'm being stopped by an abuse filter.)
  • Add patroller and confirmed to this account. (I'm really not all that likely to edit under this user name, but I'd like to minimize the fuss if I do. And I don't want to do 10 junk edits just to trip the autoconfirmed flag.)

Thanks. SJ81 (talk) [alternate account of StevenJ81] 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SJ81: I can do most of that if you request it from the main account, just so I can be sure you're who you say you are. If you don't want to make the request online, you can email me from the main account. However, I can't add the confirmed right: I believe it takes a crat to do that, and I am only an admin. You can ask a crat, but why not make ten non-junk edits? Pick a maintenance category and take care of issues on ten articles.
Anyway, if you want me to do just the template and patroller, request it from your main account. Or let me know if you'd rather ask a crat to do all of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll get at those chess articles. I haven't done much good, old-fashioned content repair in a while. (Please do patroller. As long as I just signed in as me, I'll do the template myself.) StevenJ81 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TY. SJ81 (talk) [alternate account of StevenJ81] 23:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patroller given. YW. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've a question: it's my idea, or that file doesn't exist? Regards, Hasley (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasley:That's weird. When I added it back, I saw the image in preview. I've replaced it with one that exists on Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Np. I saw that Turelio deleted that file. I even got confused with another (nonexistent) file. Thank you. Hasley (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Happy Wikibirthday @Auntof6: may you live longer to fight bad ass vandals and build our beautiful wiki. Asante sana --DJ ( - ) 20:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) wasn't it a month ago? Computer Fizz (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: My first edit here looks like it was on 18 August 2008. It doesn't seem like 11 years! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oh, i was going by your account creation, not by first edit. Either way happy (late) wikibirthday :) Computer Fizz (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RazorTheDJ: Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...11 years. Congrats, and thank you for your continued contributions. I could reasonably guess a significant amount of the vandals we block have been living for less time than you've been editing. Best, Vermont (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

likely changed to expected on Hurricane Dorian page

When I woke up this morning, I found the word likely had been changed to expected on the recent Hurricane Dorian article that I made recently. Can you say why likely was changed to expected? Is likely not as simple? Angela Maureen (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That change was for tone. I thought expected showed better encyclopedic tone than likely. I suppose it could be even better (simpler) to say something like "Meteorologists believed that Dorian would probably strike..." --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. Could you take a look at {{Placeholder}} and {{Text placeholder}}? They seem to be duplicates. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 22:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it really needed? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 22:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. Do you now how to develop articles in SimpleEN while they are already well developed on ENWP? Should I copy and simplify them with addition of Template:Translated page? What in case if these articles seem to be already simple on ENWP? Eurohunter (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changing wording

sorry about changing the wording on WP blocks and bans. I was trying to make it more simple. I was under the impression that only changes to what the actual policy is should require discussion (although that's why i requested review, just incase). Should I post on the talk page about my proposed change? Computer Fizz (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Aunt, the regular vandal is back today, so I have just been blocking on sight without warning, and hiding the revision comments. I don't think we need to give him an audience for his activities. He is also sending emails and trying to reset my passwords too. I will just keep it up for as long as it takes.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterdownunder: Main discussion is at User_talk:Antandrus Computer Fizz (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hyphen vs and

Almost every time I use a hyphen on some articles, the hyphen is changed to and; for what particular reason does that happen, Auntof6? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropical Storm Angela: I don't know, Angela. You'd have to give me a specific example. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are Gangsta rap, Tony! Toni! Toné! and Black Box (band); these are examples of hyphens and slashes being used with articles or being changed to and. Angela Maureen (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropical Storm Angela: Please don't make me hunt for the specific diff where that happened. Can you give me a specific diff? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I went through all those articles (cause I had nothing better to do) and none of them had a hyphen change to and. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation from WAM 2019

Hi WAM organizers!

Hope you are all doing well! Now it's a great time to sign up for the 2019 Wikipedia Asian Month, which will take place in November this year (29 days left!). Here are some updates and improvements we will make for upcoming WAM. If you have any suggestions or thoughts, feel free to discuss on the meta talk page.

  1. Please add your language project by 24th October 2019. Please indicate if you need multiple organisers by 29th October.
  2. Please update your community members about you being the organiser of the WAM.
  3. We want to host many onsite Edit-a-thons all over the world this year. If you would like to host one in your city, please take a look and sign up at this page.
  4. Please encourage other organizers and participants to sign-up in this page to receive updates and news on Wikipedia Asian Month.
  5. If you no longer want to receive the WAM organizer message, you can remove your username at this page.

Reach out the WAM team here at the meta talk page if you have any questions.

Best Wishes,
Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please could you revise my new version in simpler language --R C Peña (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb problem Chedi Amir

You have changed Chedi Amir other websites the imdb : nm10948163 to 10948163 but the problem is when you click the imdb , it displays another imdb 0948163 without 1 , another imdb person.--Shady.photography (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Auntof6, Hope all is well with you and yours,

When you have some time could you maybe (and very kindly) look at Dennis Trident 2 and East Lancashire Coachbuilders and make (if any) improvements where necessary,

These have both sat in my sandbox for the last 2 years with the aim of spending a good few hours on them & getting them to SIMPLE standards however I've just not had the time and due to potential work commitments I have even less time now than before so I've moved them in to mainspace and made tiny improvements where I can (I would've liked to have done a lot more!) but anyway just wanted to ask if maybe you could look at them,

Also just wanted to say thank you for all of your help over the years, I've certainly had my ways here but you've still always helped me regardless and I greatly appreciate you doing so thank you,

Take care and I wish you all the best :), Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curro Romero Page Deletion

Greetings, this is Curro Romero's Management team, and we are on behalf of our client to address the issue regarding the termination of his Wikipedia page which was a form of not only advertisement but an ongoing historical landmark for our client to distribute his life as a whole. We would like to first of all query the intentions behind such termination of our clients page, and then again, we require an admission of guilt in regards to such an act of vandalism. Consequent to this, we can discuss further terms and come to an agreement, as this has taken a hit onto my client's professionalism and confidence.

We are given the courtesy of providing an allowance of 48 to 78 hours until further contact is made back with us, further disregarding this warning will provide in prosecution for the vandalism made to our client's professional career. Any continuous aggravation of the dilemma will result in the necessity of a monetary compensation due to the professional damage made. King Regards, Curro Romero (Snowboard) Management Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I would point out that all articles are required to meet notability standards. Something to read is en:Wikipedia:No legal threats. Since a legal threat was made I have had to remove your editing ability. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aston University

Thank you for taking the time to improve my new page Aston University. I had only created it a few hours earlier and it was a work in progress. The commented text you removed had been deliberately left there. It had been copied over from the main english wikipedia en:Aston University but had not yet been 'processed' into simple english. I was initially annoyed as it did not improve the page as displayed but of course it does not matter as the content is still available (as a previous version) for later editing and inclusion. It did of course improve/simplify the source for other editors to improve.

I may use this technique for future articles; i.e. copy over the 'raw' text; save an initial simple english version with commented out text (complex english; unverified citations; unchecked images etc); and then save a further vesion with the comments removed. Does this seem a good technique? -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm not Auntof6, but I'll give my thoughts. What I like to do is make a draft page in my userspace. Then I copy the enwiki page to it and work on simplifying it gradually. After I feel it is ready then I move to mainspace. (For an example, see the edit history of T-ara to see how I did that). Something else I have done is make the page as a stub. Then I copy other sections into my sandbox and add each one to the page after I have simplified. With both my idea is the same, to only put text in mainspace once I have made it simpler. But of course, others have different methods or ideas. Desertborn (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertborn: Thanks, I think I'll be adding a few pages so keeping all the working info on the page seemed a simpler idea. I also thought it might aid any other user who wanted to have a go... save them going back to the english wikipedia to find the source infomation. Maybe it needs a visible flag on the page to say "more information to be added from the comments" with some explanatory text. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something about it was making it show up in a maintenance category, even though the unsimplified text was commented. That is why I removed it. However, I can't remember or determine why it showed up there. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Probably the complexity and size of the 'comment'. I think it is OK to leave it for a week or two to allow the content to be re-worked (and removed from being commented); but if this was some auto-bot then still not an issue as it just means opening the old version of the page to copy over from.

signing Wikipedia names in color, updated laptop computer

My old computer is too junky and substandard to use for Wikipedia. That's the reason I ain't using it for work. But sometime before April 2020, I'm gonna get myself a new laptop computer.

Furthermore, I wanna know how to sign the words Tropical Storm in red and the name Angela in dark blue. I don't know how to use mixed colors for signing my name. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I found a tutorial on enwiki that may help you set up the colors. Desertborn (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropical Storm Angela: What kind of computer can't run wikipedia? it's just a webpage. Probably the wii internet channel could run it. About the sig though: Tropical Storm Angela Does this look good? Computer Fizz (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm talking about, guys. I want the first two words of my name in red and the name Angela in dark blue. Angela Maureen (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but that's what i put? Computer Fizz (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 potential organizers for Simple English Wikipedia

Greetings, Auntof6. Are you interested in organizing Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 with me in this Wikipedia? Here are the guidelines. (WP:WAM). I think we need to move the 2018 page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2018 if we want to organize it. —Wei4Green#TeamTrees🌲 20:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wei4Green: Sorry, no. I did it the last two years, but I'm not going to this year. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for your service. —Wei4Green#TeamTrees🌲 23:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movie or Film

It seems I have made a mistake in calling a film a film (instead of movie). Both terms seem 'simple' to me. If there has been discussion and a decision generating a policy or rule, I cannot find it. To me it seems odd to refer to a film by the US term 'movie'.

If this has been agreed in a previous discussion can I be refered to the policy page? Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian R Hunter: The decision was made before my time, so I don't know where it might be documented. I will ask at Simple talk. I can tell you that one reason movie is considered simpler is that film has other meanings, so movie is less ambiguous.
If you are interested in other ways that this wiki is different from other Wikipedias, you might like to look at this list that I started keeping some time ago. If you have questions about anything on it, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It maybe a convention you have used so far but I would still like to see the policy decision. If there isn't a formal agreement then I would wish to reopen the debate. 'movie' is very much an americanism, 'film' is very british. There should be room for both. I do not see it generating confusion as most of the world calls them 'films'. Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also request you stop changing all references to 'film' until you can produce the agreed decision. It is not enough to say that it is 'what we do' and use your own documentation as the only justification. Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also (my final rant for the night). If we ban use of the word 'film', do we have to rename Film noir to Movie noir? Filmography to Movieography? British Academy of Film and Television Arts to British Academy of Movie and Television Arts?
I could go on... Brian R Hunter (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are serious, no, we don't have to rename all those. Anything that is part of a proper name remains the same. We use the word filmography because there is no such word as movieography and because filmography isn't ambiguous. It's pretty much just the word film by itself that's ambiguous.
Be assured that you are not the first person to come up against this. Writing simple English can be more difficult than writing regular English. (Note that I used difficult instead of hard, because hard has multiple meanings.) I recommend that you read some of our pages designed to help with this. Help:Translate English into Simple English, while not a policy or guideline, explains some of the reasoning behind word choices. The guideline pages Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia are usually helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I do see how words with multiple meanings can be confusing. But I also think that words have a context. In an article about 'film awards', for example the BAFTAs, it is surely more confusing to say "this movie won best film". Unless 'simple wikipedia' is inventing a new language it should openly explain cases such as this to reduce confusion for new learners.Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I step in here? I found an archive of simple talk. Users agreed that both are technically correct, but movie is more accepted due to WP:MOS. Plus, it's simpler. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I read it. WP:MOS does not mention the use of the word 'film', it simply refers to them consistently as 'movie'. In the archived discussion there does not seem to be a conclusion in favour of 'movie'; the most sense was from the user who said it was more important to be consistent. 'Movie' is certainly more accepted by Americans and those learning American English, for others it would be confusing to see the term 'movie' in a discussion of BAFTA awards. Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was around when the discussions happened. The reasoning for movie over film is that a movie is always a movie. But film has multiple meanings such as the film used in cameras or plastic film etc etc. You will find editing here that you have to think like a non-english speaker, not just an American english or British english speaker etc as we are not writing for native english speakers. We try to eliminate every possible complicated situation, so in cases where there are two words that mean the same but one has less meanings than the other, the one with less meanings is always the one to go with. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new categories

When creating a new page via a copy from en.wikipedia I have been creating new categories for some of the categories that are carried over. My criterion is if it looks like there will eventually be sufficient entries in the new category then I create it, if unlikely in the near future I leave it as a red-link or delete it if it looks to be a useless category. Obviously when I move the first page that fits the new category it will have only one entry. The alternative is to leave red-link missing categories until there are sufficient to warrant creating the category. It is a bit chicken/egg.

In both cases the categories are getting removed. Either the nearly empty new category or the red-link entry on the new page. Is there a way to keep these 'place holder' categories without them being 'tidied'? -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian R Hunter: Probably not in the way you mean. We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category? that says "Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. There should be a minimum of three articles that would fit into the category before a new category is created." Part of simplifing and adapting an article from enwiki is to make the categories fit the category structure here, which is different from enwiki's. If it looks like there will eventually be enough entries for a category, you could create enough stubs to have at least three entries. If the category is redlinked, you could comment it until there are at least three entries. Otherwise you could just leave the category off. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not sure why I hadn't thought of either solution you have suggested. Commenting out the missing (but potentially useful) categories would seem to be the best approach. For future new pages I shall remove the missing categories that are unlikely to be useful and comment those that I think have future potential. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you may have never thought of is that some categories on en.wiki that exist may not ever exist here. The goal on simple.wiki is to have as few categories as possible while still being useful as a categorization structure. The reason that a minimum of 3 was added was to prevent people from creating whole category trees, multiple categories deep for a single article. My personal recommendation when I see this topic come up is, you shouldn't create a category unless its parent category has more that one page worth of entries in it (ie 200 articles) but we get a lot of editors that come here and find creating categories easier than writing articles so they go a bit crazy creating categories and then creating stubs just to fill categories which in a way defeats the purpose of the minimum of 3 articles in a category but it is within the letter of the law. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree totally. There are far too many categories on en.wikipedia. I plan to cull obviously useless categories as part of the first simplyfying edit of a moved page; leave those that already exist; and comment out those that have potential to exist but need more articles before being created. I do not like stub articles that are created just to solve red-links etc. they hide the need for real content. I prefer to leave red-links to show the need for a new article. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving 2019!

Happy Thanksgiving, Auntof6. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC) @Tropical Storm Angela: Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...why did you revert Nigos? I don't understand that. Vermont (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They removed a section from the page, a section about acceptable user names. I see that they also removed a second signature from a different section that shouldn't have been there, and I have re-removed that. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See this diff. Look at the text they attributed to me. This was what I actually wrote, before removing the section a few minutes later and blocking their account indefinitely. This is an extremely long-term LTA. Do you have any objections if I remove the section? Vermont (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: No objection. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking help on the newly created Wiki page

Dear Aunt, i have created a page for an actor, who is based on Toronto, Canada. I'd say a minor TV actor with decent news coverage, who deserves a Simplified English page. As a Spanish Canadians i do like Simplified English Wikipedia version a lot. The page is located at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Tang

Will you please help me resolve the existing issue on the page?

Just putting a date stamped comment here on the off chance this is the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFD thing

Are you going to post to ANI about the RfD thing this year? Or did that get fixed while i wasn't looking. Computer Fizz (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean about the automatically generated delete reason? I was thinking about that the other day. I don't think it has been fixed. I've just been having some issues that make it harder to stay on top of things as much as I used to. Plus I've been told that people don't like it when I tell them things that need doing. But I guess I'll post something. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I'm sorry to hear about your memory issues. Which I assume is some real-life problem, but I won't ask about your medical history obviously. I don't believe that "telling people things that need doing" is bad though, especially when it's a group of people. If wikipedia didn't have a community and everyone just anarchily edited articles, wikipedia would not get very far. I approve of the notice though. Thanks for listening to me. Computer Fizz (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's actually an energy issue, not a memory issue. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]