User talk:Barras/Archive 12

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

Thank you...

I know you are on break, I want to stop by and thank you for all the work and pray that when you come back, you will continue with us. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't know that I'm on a break, but OK! -Barras (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh... I though I saw you on the permissions at meta saying you were taking one... I might be mistaken. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 22:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, a break from those advanced tools doesn't really mean wiki-break. People won't get rid of me that quick. ;-) -Barras (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aww.... :( ;) fr33kman 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing to be sad about, btw. In one week everyone will forget about it don't remember it anyway. Life goes on. People usually make a big fuss about it when someone slightly decides to go away and soon they forget it. Who remembers Majorly, Shappy, Creol or Archer7? Usually big sadness when the leave and now? No one cares anymore. Really, nothing to worry about. Heads up folks. Someone will just replace me at some point ;-) -Barras (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember all of them ... fr33kman 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you (Barras) do not take a break, I will never catch up to your edit count! --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, I'll do everthing that you will only see my backside! But honestly, I'd rather like to get a new article to (V)GA status instead of having more edits than someone else. -Barras (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hiya Barras, I agree my timing for RfA here is prob. a bit ill-timed. I am travelling right now so I only have access to internet intermittently, can you please withdraw my request for RfA and close it as withdrawn. I will def. try and improve on the points others made, I agree with most of them. I appreciate the kind words. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, will take care of it. See you around! -Barras (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getty Center

Thank you for the feedback. I changed the hook. Please take another look. Racepacket (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the rollback rights...

...and for your nice welcome. I do have a few questions.

It seems that not many articles here on have references. That's a big deal on, where I'm used to working. Is it not so important here?

There seem to be fewer categories. Is that because they haven't been created yet, or to keep the category structure simpler?

Some things that have been deprecated on seem to be common here. Is it OK to keep using them here? They include:

  • The BD template
  • Linking of dates, such as birth and death dates in articles about people

I'm sure I'll have more questions, but that will do for now. I'll watch this page so you can reply here. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we really want to have more references and sources for articles. It is important to have them, however, we are only about 20 to 30 active users here, some who only do new creations, others who do only admin stuff and few who do all what they find. This is why probably many of our articles lack sources. We don't have the man power to get them all referenced and stuff. See also the quite blown Category:Articles lacking sources.
As for the categories: We have much less articles than the English Wikipedia has and we (at least currently) don't need all of them. There is a rule that any category here should have at least 3 entries in it to be useful. As long as there aren't enough articles to warrant an own category/sub-category, we simply use the next one in the hierarchy. Of course you can create new Categories and fill them, there is surely enough work that needs to be done in this area.
The {{BD}}-template is quite commonly used around here as it is fairly easy and so, but there are also people who substituted the template recently to get the normal categories to the articles instead. I personally liked the BD template, but also don't have a problem to use the categories directly.
The linking of dates is probably something controversial here. While I like linking the dates, there are many people who unlink them. This is something we sooner or later need to discuss on simple talk to get some consensus about which way we should go.
I hope this helps you for now! Best, -Barras (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that's very helpful!
Would you happen to know who does the approvals for using AWB here? I have requested authority here, but it doesn't look like anyone has done anything there in a while besides making requests. I would like to use AWB to take care of issues that appear here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added you to the page, now. I think this is just a page not monitored by many people. -Barras (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Barras. I'm not sure I understand why that was deleted. It was placed on articles that had already been moved to wiktionary to let users know there was another place for them to find out what that word means. I felt it was a very useful template, as it directed users to the correct place and let them know that Wikipedia was not the correct place for a dictionary definition. Can you please explain to me? Thanks! --Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've {{dicdef}}. Once an article is transferred to Wiktionary, the article should just be deleted here. We are not a dictionary and linking to there as the only link in an article is somehow like creating all the pages we don't have, but en.WP has with only a crosslink to their page. Kinda useless, isn't it? This is Wikipedia and not Wiktionary. The only thing we probably should do is, to make the search function better. If we don't have an entry, it could show up something like "Maybe the SImple English Wiktionary has a definition on this". I think en.WP does it this way. But for me, if we allow those things, we can also to create articles with soft-redirects to en.WP. No reason for me to allow such things. -Barras (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to have something to let people know that wiktionary may have an entry about a topic we don't have. This template did that, and it didn't make us a dictionary... It simply informed people that wiktionary exists and has an entry on a topic and we don't. Is there any way we can create some sort of message to tell people to look at wiktionary for a definition, like you suggested?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As said, there is or at least should be a way, but I'm not a MediaWiki expert. At least a template isn't the way it should be, otherwise, we likely will have a template (soft-redirect) forwarding people to en.WP for topics we don't cover yet. -Barras (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I understand, the {{Wi}} template wasn't very practical. Maybe when I am back to being around the wiki everyday I will see about adding some sort of message. Thanks Barras!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since its speedy has been objected to it should probably be restored and put through a Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artur Balder

The deletion of the article about Artur Balder is not righteous. The article was accepted at the English wp because of the references. There is no possible reason to eliminate it from the Simple E. WP. We cannot play with the words, and call the translations of an accepted article "cross wp". All this is coming from a Dutch user called MoiraMoira, and it is a kind of simple vandalism. replace the article and submit a votation and a discussion page about the deletion.--Lolox76 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then it is still a copyright violation as it simply is a copy of enwiki's article without any attribution. Even more a reason to delete. -Barras (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub templates and categories

I see you're tweaking this stuff, so I'm going to hold off on any more stub sorting for now. (It's a couple of hours past my bedtime anyway!) For the templates that you redirected, are you going to eventually delete the ones that aren't approved and/or don't have categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub templates should usually be approved on WP:SSP because we soon will have as many stubs as enwiki has. This isn't useful for the number of articles we have. I'm going to fix the other stubs there and redirect the ones which are heavily linked to {{stub}} and delete the rest. -Barras (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I didn't create any new stub templates, just a couple of categories for existing stub templates. For the heavily-linked ones, I can volunteer to do an AWB run to change them all to {{stub}}. Then they could be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me first go through the mess. This is something for later. -Barras (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and could you explain this edit, please? An article on architecture doesn't have anything to do with performing arts. Are you planning on redirecting performing arts stubs to just arts stubs? Also, it's a bit underhanded of you to delete all the uses of a template, then delete the template with the rationale it's not used. Just sayin' Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only changed them to the next higher stub—if wrong, so fix it. The stub was not approved on WP:SSP and those shouldn't exist. You know the procedure. It is not my fault when people are too lazy to ask for input before creating stubs. I could just go through the stubs and delete all without at least trying to fix the articles. You as a regular editor here should know better. -Barras (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, two other editors agreed that there needed to be a visual arts stub...see Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project#Template:Art-stub. I will likely request undeletion of it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two comments, of which at least Djsasso's sounds only like a suggestion for better naming, is hardly any kind of consensus or good agreement. Also just a creation without any link to the discussion is hardly a good idea, nor has the stub tag been added to the appropriate page as it should be. Also, the one single article which used the stub doesn't even warrant an own stub tag. -Barras (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art Institute of Chicago

Thank you for moving the article to user space. Your further comments are always welcome. Racepacket (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Rarely do any article work? I hope you were not referring to me :) I've started and converted a few. Nah... many. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't compare yourself to an IP or newbie. You should only compare to the best people like Peter, Macdonald-ross, TRM and for quality stuff look also at Pml or BG7. Then you see who I mean. To say it more clear: Yes, you are one of those people I mean. With less than 30 percent article work (to compare with this, this or even this)... And many is relative. Oh, and please don't forget to point me to your last GA, VGA and your recent self-written DYKs. Quality and articles make this an encyclopaedia, not discussions on AN, ST and warnings for vandals. -Barras (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Unblocked per your request and private communication with the blocked party. Please do your best with mentorship, and I thank you for the undertaking. Jon@talk:~$ 15:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this really allowed? I thought the community just banned him. That isn't a decision that can be overturned by private discussions...--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er... no. Upon reading the discussion, there is not wide support for the block, or a ban. The discussion is split, and there is no consensus to do anything in regards to that discussion. Jon@talk:~$ 16:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without any consensus there, the block comes back to me to remove or stay at my decision. Since there is no consensus to make it go or stay. Jon@talk:~$ 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) Not to nitpick but the discussion was closed with a decision that there was consensus. I don't really have a strong opinion either way I am just pointing out the close on the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh... a decision of a consensus does not a consensus make. I see the opinions very well split. Jon@talk:~$ 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't be reblocking at this juncture. Also, I will not remove a block if it is replaced. I'm done with this one, this one is up to Barras as far as I am concerned. *washes hands* Jon@talk:~$ 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec)Right but being an involved admin and since an uninvolved admin judged consensus that means you personally can't overturn it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I have made an error, you may undo me, I will take it in good faith. Either way, I have removed myself from this. Jon@talk:~$ 17:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Using the chemistry articles for deletion as the starting point, I have looked at the following articles, and they look "simple" to me:

  • Diels-Adler reaction ‎ reviewed, article is simple. -Barras (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Stereochemistry  reviewed, as above. -Barras (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Electrocyclic reaction
  • Mechanical stress  reviewed, I think it is sufficient simple. -Barras (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Continuum mechanics  ok
  • Group transfer reaction  ok
  • Theoretical chemistry  ok
  • HOMO/LUMO  ok
  • Substituent  ok
  • Diene  reviewed, looks ok. -Barras (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Woodward's rules  reviewed, sufficient simple, I think. -Barras (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of these may need a background article or two to help explain them, but removing those red links can wait until later. Please let me know if you agree, and I am going to focus instead on the others that have been nominated for deletion. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just reviewed two of them. Will work through the rest as quick as possible. However, will be away until Sunday. Especially Diels–Alder reaction could make a good DYK. If you'd have a good idea? Will now try to review one or two more articles from above, the others will have to wait until I'm back home. -Barras (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Reviewed another one, the other will have to wait till Sunday. -Barras (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Electrocyclic reaction is actually fairly complex. This one needs some work in simplification. -Barras (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I liked that one because it is one of the few times that an article works through an example of applying the Woodward-Hoffmann rules. Would you be happier if we cut off some of the later sections? Should we move the example to the article, Woodward-Hoffman rules? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know yet, I will work on it. It is not a problem with the examples, it is more a problem that the language is a bit to complex. -Barras (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should also review the other articles in the deletion list:

  • Molecular orbital ‎-  ok Also marked as complex, simple enough to be in main name space, there are other complex articles too. -Barras (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Molecular symmetry -  ok as above. -Barras (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pericyclic reaction -  ok as above, however not (yet) tagged as complex. -Barras (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cycloaddition -  ok as above. -Barras (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cheletropic reaction -  ok as above. -Barras (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sigmatropic reaction
  • Torquoselectivity (needs helper articles on conrotatory and disrotatory)
  • Dyotropic reaction
  • Theoretical chemistry  Simplified - Again, I think this one is ok now. -Barras (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conjugated system

Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll work on the stuff later, now I've to do some other things. I'm back either tomorrow or Thursday if all works the way I want. -Barras (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I currently stick at molecular orbital, this one's language actually is kind of complex. Just a note. -Barras (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I further simplified the MO article. Racepacket (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am looking for more guidance on the above list of articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still not done with MO yet. See the comment on the talk page. This really is complex and needs some work and I currently don't find a way to simplify it. I think I will move on with the others first. -Barras (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your changes on Theoretical chemistry. What does the extension of the Articles for Deletion proposal until August 18 really mean? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In theory it means I felt enough people hadn't commented for a closure on the normal date. Don't worry about anything, your articles are not going to be deleted. I'll close it now. :) fr33kman 20:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks for closing. Racepacket (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for Jean Balukas PGA comments

I think I've adequately fixed everything you pointed out. PGA doesn't seem to be getting much attention these days, but maybe that is partly my own fault. I'm really beginning to regret I ever asked. I had no idea how far it could spin out of control. Gotanda (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just re-read the article, it is fine now. Really good work! -Barras (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selectivity on simple is an article about filtering. On en.wikipedia, it is an disambiguation page. I am either asking you to either make an disamb. page or permission to allow me to do it. I have linked to it in Torquoselectivity but for its chemical meaning. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved and disambig create. Hope this is OK so. If not, fix it! ;-) -Barras (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Könntest du mal nachsehen?

Hoffe dass es einfach genug geschrieben ist... und vor allem verständlich :D --WizardOfOz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erledigt. Schau dir die diffs an und lerne ;-) -Barras (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ja Meister! :P --WizardOfOz (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Based from your experience, do you think I have what it takes to be a steward, as far as depth and breadth of experience? Thank you for looking. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly don't think you have much chances to pass. You are probably too unknown in the wiki-world. Most people want to see cu/os or global vandal fighter experience to support. I doubt that you'll pass. -Barras (talk)


Hello Barras, I think I have found two articles about Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 - here and here. I think that calls for a merge, but I'm not sure so I'm asking you. If it needs a merge, do you think the title should be Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 because that is the en-wiki title, or maybe Shoemaker-Levy 9 (comet)? Regards, DJDunsie (talk · changes) 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Articles merged to the correct title used on enwiki Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9. Now it needs some fixes, maybe you want? ;) -Barras (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. I would be delighted to fix it up and improve it. You did a good merge job by the way, well done! :) DJDunsie (talk · changes) 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next steps

We seem to be a bit stuck, and I am waiting for you. Maybe there has been too much work on theoretical articles and we should turn to User:Racepacket/Art Institute of Chicago and User:Racepacket/GCMS for a while. Alternatively, I could start a user space version of en:Conrotatory and disrotatory to help explain the other articles. Thanks for all your help, Racepacket (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple is missing Template:CODATA2006 which is a citation template. May I construct it? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, have had some troubles recently in my real life (some old grumpy aunt or something was sick, then finally died, then funeral preparation and the funeral itself). I was a bit busy with this stuff and those couldn't really concentrate much on wiki and didn't made much progress, sadly. I'm now (hopefully) back to more activity to get the articles simplified. I will for now focus on the things that are already there. You can of course try and help yourself to simplify the stuff ;-) For the template, if it is needed, just bring it over. Best, -Barras (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry for the loss of your relative, and I look forward to working with you further. My mother is visiting me for the weekend, so my availability will also be limited. I will move the template. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your work on the theoretical chemistry article. Until you catch up, I hope you do not mind if I start a couple of new user pages to work on some other potential new articles. Racepacket (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, no problems here as long as they are in your user space. -Barras (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you want to take a break from theoretical chemistry topics, please look at User talk:Racepacket/DWS and User:Racepacket/KenOlsen - I am trying some bios and if they meet your approval, I will move them to article space. I would need to have File:Debbie Wasserman Schultz, official portrait, 112th Congress.jpg moved to Commons. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, a break doesn't sound bad, but I want to fix the things in our main name space first. This is more important. For the commons move thing, I will poke someone to take care of it. -Barras (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got a commons admin moving it to commons. Now available as File:Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz,_official_portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg. -Barras (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am willing to work with you if I could better understand what the target is. I believe that the diagrams and images help the understanability of the articles. The theoretical chemistry article is interesting because it does not have any images or equations. I had thought that you and I agreed that it was Simple, and I am not clear what more can be done with it. I can't find the talk page for that article now. I am willing to give fixing the "proposed for deletion" articles a high priority, but I don't know what is acceptable and what is not because I get conflicting feedback. (I am not complaining, I'm just trying to let you know that I am puzzled about what I need to do.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the talk page comment now, and will copy edit the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanted to let you both know I replied to Barras' comments on my talk page. Thanks again, Gotanda (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's try a survey article that is more concrete and less theoretical. I have created User talk:Racepacket/Thermochemistry. Is it Simple? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC

Will take a look at it. As for the stuff above, I'm a scientist myself, so it is usually harder for me to say if something is simple or not—I understand the things usually. This doesn't make my saying "it is simple" always correct (The reason I usually edit only other stuff). Have you thought about my comment on your talk page regarding the move? -Barras (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understand properly the problem, I can fix the articles on the second list quickly. User:Gotanda has problems with the underlying En theoretical chemistry article. It probably needs a full re-write on both En and Simple. However, I think that the other articles on the second list are now close to done. So I think that it would be easier to make a few small fixes than to userfy them. Take a quick look and if you think the article on the second list (other than Theoretical chemistry) have major problems, please userfy them. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at User:Racepacket/Organometallic chemistry. Again this is a very tangible and approachable topic. Racepacket (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to interrupt, but I would just like to say that, if you need me, I can act as a 'simple' guide as I only have a basic knowledge of chemistry (I'm learning). So, if you like, I can read through articles and tell you if I understand them. DJDunsie (talk · changes) 13:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That'd be good. I haven't edited this area until recently, as I still have problems to say that something there is simple enough or not. Help is always appreciated. -Barras (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd just like to say that I think the articles should be a bit like Fermat's last theorem. It is simple, and you only have to have a basic knowledge to follow it. Compare this to the article, which I can't understand. Some good points are made at the talk page by IPs. It's worth reading through. What do you think of my idea? DJDunsie (talk · changes) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a good example of a simple article, however, it is not always possible. This article is about something most basic in maths and doesn't need much other stuff to explain it. Chemistry is generally a bit more difficult. Our goal in general is to write for foreigners and for students (I think between 10 and 16 or something). Articles should be simple enough so people with no academic background can understand the stuff. -Barras (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe short explanations in brackets, in some places? DJDunsie (talk · changes) 16:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, either explanation or just very simple in first place or links to more difficult stuff. The problem with links is that we are missing many things about science related stuff. -Barras (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:DJDunsie, I think we have three types of problems: 1) bad articles from Wikipedia that need editing on En(e.g. theoretical chemistry and the En: Art Institute of Chicago); 2) survey articles that try to describe or survey an academic field instead of explaining everything (e.g., Organometallic chemistry and thermochemistry); and 3) very abstract and theoretical topics (e.g., molecular orbital). If you could pick one or two articles and critique and/or simplify them, I could learn a lot from you. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Racepacket. I will have a look at a few articles and I'll see what I can do. However, I am fairly new to this wiki, and I am not amazing in simple English (and chemistry). I will do my best, though. About Category 1, why don't you start the article from scratch here. I find it is much easier to write simple English originally rather than to simplfy Having said this, I must praise you because you have taken on advice and you are making simpler articles. Well done. :) Please feel free to message me if you have any problems or need help, thank you, DJDunsie (talk · changes) 20:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

What do you think of the article from scratch idea, Racepacket? DJDunsie (talk · changes) 08:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People are starting to waste time creating a stub article at Art Institute of Chicago. Would it be better to move User:Racepacket/Art Institute of Chicago into article space now? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have come up with two articles that are so simple, you can give permission to move them into article space right away: User:Racepacket/Period 2 element and User:Racepacket/Period 3 element. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can move them both. Far away from being complex! -Barras (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On English Wikipedia Template:ChemicalBondsToCarbon is used by dozens of organometalic-related articles. I will use it in organometalical chemistry. It has no prose, other than the legend for the chart. May I move it over from En? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In danger of beating a dead horse here, but how about first simplifying or userfying these before adding anything new to the to-do list? First things first. Gotanda (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, have to agree now. We first need to work on the existing stuff before starting new projects. I can't do this controlling every day. I also have some other projects here (Special:NewPages, some own article work I'd like to get done, etc). As I already said above, working on one article per week and doing this correctly is enough work. -Barras (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that you were going to complete your review of the second list to see if the articles could remain. I, in turn, am working on the organometallic chemistry article and proposed moving the template to help that article. I am waiting for further guidance on the other articles, because I have done what I can to simplify them. Racepacket (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just looked at Sigmatropic reaction, just for an overview. I think I already told you that we should use short sentences and link (most) things which are out of the 850 list, and the BNC spoken freq list. At times, we even link things mentioned there, when they are somehow complex. Just refering to SR, one sentence which clearly is complex: "A convenient means of determining the order of a given sigmatropic rearrangement is to number the atoms of the bond being broken as atom 1, and then count the atoms in each direction from the broken bond to the atoms that form the new σ-bond in the product, numbering consecutively.". It isn't always easy to simplify stuff. I'm not a language expert and simplifying an article is very time consuming. It is not possible for me to review them in 5 minutes. A review for a that short article takes me at least one or even two hours. Then there are many articles that need work. That is why I said, that we should move them all to userspace and work on one article per week only. I also have some other stuff to do and can't only do this stuff. This wiki has many issues I currently work on. I'm also active elsewhere and am having a real life. I hope you can understand why I proposed the moves. I can't do that all alone in 2 days, that's it. -Barras (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I am not criticizing your work pace, and understand the many demands on your time. I will addresses the comments that you made on sigmatropic reaction, and remain responsive to your input. I was hoping that at least some of the articles could remain in article space, where they would draw more comments and improvements by others. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, we don't have many contributors here and most usually don't edit difficult stuff. There is also no rush. It doesn't matter if an article goes to main name space one week or the other. -Barras (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I hate for there to be duplication of effort like here. I have made sigmatropic reaction more simple. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a technical term is not on the "word list", I am linking it to a separate article or to Wiktionary. However, if I use that term two more times in a article, should I link it one time or all three times? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to move to a timely topic, please also look at User:Racepacket/2011 Virginia earthquake. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it is timely, I've worked on it right now, but not the ordinary way of me doing everything, I left some comments on the talk page. Have fun! -Barras (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changes made. That was a learning experience. I also learned to type "wikt:" in the search box to access Simple Wiktionary. Racepacket (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you feel that it is ready, I would be honored to have you move it to the article space. Racepacket (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you seen Pmlineditor's comments on the talk page? -Barras (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not, but I have made the changes he raised. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, article moved. Good work. I think this way it works better than me doing the changes. -Barras (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the way we (or better you) worked on this one now was the best way. It at least made things for me much easier and probably the learning-by-doing systems works also better for you. I'd suggest that we go on this way. Just tell me which article you want to have reviewed next. (Please note, I'm probably away until Saturday evening, will know tomorrow morning) -21:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket, if we're honest, you did most of the work so don't do yourself down. And Barras, I agree with him - I think it is ready for article space. DJDunsie (talk · changes) 12:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mhh... I list a bit count here and am confused. What article do you want me to look at as next one? -Barras (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Barras, any idea why we have a long article on Arthur Seyß-Inquart, and almost no article on Kurt Schuschnigg? --Eptalon (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will take a look, but Racepacket above is currently more in my focus. -Barras (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help, please. I tried moving, but got it wrong

Hi, per the above discussion and the original RfD, I tried moving some fo the pages to userspace, but I guess I did it the wrong way. Probably need to be an admin. I'm afraid I botched the move of Molecular orbital. Can you help me fix that? Sorry for the hassle, thought I was saving you or others effort. I won't try any others. Gotanda (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The move worked. You now only need to tag the redirect to mark for deletion. You did the move correctly. -Barras (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the fix. I forgot that 'Move' would leave behind the redirect. I could blank the namespace article, but not delete it. Thanks for pointing me to the correct mark for deletion. Gotanda (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh Dear...

This shows how... tired I must be :P Yottie =talk= 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hehe, I will give you a review later. Just found that I need to fix this major issue ;-) -Barras (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scallop PGA

Care to continue reviewing the article? :) Yottie =talk= 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review completed. -Barras (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Racepacket/move

Sorry, can't edit the above section, it is too large already... However, if Dj thinks it is simple enough, then please move it. He's helped here quite a lot and I think it is ok then. Can't/ Won't edit the page from here. Best, Barras (de) (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not saying it is brilliant but it will probably do - I can't simplify everything, as I don't understand it all, as I said before. But thanks anyway, DJDunsie (talk · changes) 19:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I understand that you are on travel using a cell phone. Thank you for checking in. I will move it. (In any large organization people with different skill sets have to work together to meet goals. This is a good example of someone with Chemistry knowledge working with someone with Simple English expertise to produce a good article.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just went through the article. It looks good. Fine to have it in nmain space. -Barras (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the four articles that you have not checked on the second list (above) are simple. Please look at them. If they are bad, then we can move them to user space, but I hope that is not necessary. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three of them have a review on their talk page. The last one will follow soon. For now, I'm going to write a DYK. -Barras (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your continued generosity. Racepacket (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take a look at Torquoselectivity. I think that if I write two short articles based on En Wikipedia, for Conrotatory and disrotatory, we are done. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You haven't fix all of the comments. Please make a  Done behind those you fixed and give me a reason why you did not fix others. This would make it easier to get an overview and probably helps to simplify the article if I know where the issue is when something isn't fixed. -Barras (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next up are Sigmatropic reaction and User:Racepacket/Conrotatory and disrotatory. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just reviewed the three articles where I left some comments. Your changes to them are really good and I removed from two of them the complex tag. I will now review the last article of the list above. -Barras (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, the list from above is completed, at least I'm done with my reviews (I mean Sigmatropic reaction). Will go on with the next you linked me to soon. -Barras (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just reviewed User:Racepacket/Conrotatory and disrotatory as well. Tell me when you are done and with what you want to go on. -Barras (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your helpful reviews. I am very puzzled on "notation." There are many Simple articles that use the word and some articles have the word in the title. Can I just link to it in the hope that someone will write a general encyclopedia article about it? Please guide me on what the user needs. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's OK. Since we are a quite small wiki, it is normal to have redlinks. -Barras (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I finished User:Racepacket/Conrotatory and disrotatory. Do you want another look or may I move it? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is ready for the move now. -Barras (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have finished processing the "proposed articles for deletion" I suggest your next target should be GCMS. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question in Sigmatropic reaction some terms are linked in the lead paragraph or the overview section and then used later in the article. Should they be linked more than once? Does it matter how far apart the words appear? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends a bit on the word actually, if it is really complex, then it should probably be linked again, but in most cases one link should be enough. -Barras (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe User:Racepacket/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is ready for article space. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Reviewed -Barras (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I finished the Sigmatropic reaction list from the talk page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the complex tag. The other things will have a bit, because I'm gonna be away for some days (again). -Barras (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another short one, User:Racepacket/Allen Telescope Array is also ready. Racepacket (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Reviewed -Barras (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that User:Racepacket/Chemical synthesis is also ready. Racepacket (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Reviewed -Barras (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I continue to work while you are away on travel and believe that User:Racepacket/Polymer chemistry is also ready. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Reviewed -Barras (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your GCMS comments. I have addressed them. Racepacket (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I've now reviewed all articles you posted here to me. -Barras (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about User:Racepacket/Yield (chemistry). Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Reviewed and ready for move. -Barras (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I now move User:Racepacket/Polymer chemistry? Also, may I bring from En Wiki {{ChemicalBondsToCarbon}} for the Organometallic Chemistry article? Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done, it is ready for the move. I've just imported the template, it is easier than copy and pasting it. -Barras (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, I left some comments too. DJDunsie (talk · changes) 14:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I addressed DJDunsie's review and will move. Next: User:Racepacket/Paul Flory Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Reviewed and made some minor stuff myself. -Barras (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your helpful changes to Flory. May I please move it? Racepacket (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. -Barras (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I please move User:Racepacket/Chemical synthesis? Racepacket (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, go ahead. -Barras (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that User:Racepacket/Organic synthesis is ready. How does the robot expand the DOI citations? It does not seem to work in user space? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Reviewed - No clue about the bot, sorry. -Barras (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changes made. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe User:Racepacket/KenOlsen is ready. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Reviewed -Barras (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changes made. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe User:Racepacket/GCMS is ready. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another short one, User:Racepacket/Rearrangement reaction is ready. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe User:Racepacket/Art Institute of Chicago is ready for your review. You have made changes to it before. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the above, please look at User:Racepacket/Computational chemistry. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another short one is User:Racepacket/Carbon–hydrogen bond activation. Many thanks for all of your assistance. Racepacket (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Because you've edited so much lately. Your help really is appreciated, even if people don't always seem to care. Yottie =talk= 22:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! -Barras (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what do you think...

...about the suggestion here that I create an alternate account? I didn't know a bot flag could be attached to an account that wasn't an actual, automated bot. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, actually, I don't care much. People usually worry too much about our recent changes. There are other wikis (en, fr, de, etc) where the RCs are useless, because they are always flooded. I rarely use the flag... -Barras (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for closing Jean Balukas. I would have responded earlier but was offline on a little vacation trip. Much appreciated. Also, thanks for catching some of the things I'm not very good at such as the categories and heading on Egyptian Literature. I keep forgetting those. Gotanda (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sehen Sie bitte meine Wikimail von Dewiki. Danke. --Deutscher Friedensstifter (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


if u could help my stubs sometime i would appreciate it thank you, Barras. --Seaca (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I helped deleting them. -Barras (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL ^ Normandy (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not funny, it took me one minute to find Special:Nuke/Seaca! :-P -Barras (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current Status

I am starting a new section because the 'move' section above is getting too long. These are waiting for your permission to move into article space (after I had made all of your changes):

Already reviewed
Short articles to be reviewed

These are short ones waiting your review:

Articles to be reviewed

There are full sized articles waiting your review:

I appreciate all of the work that you have put into teaching me. Racepacket (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, this is a good idea to list them so. Makes a better overview and it is easy for me to see what needs to be done and what is already done. -Barras (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: do you think that User:Racepacket/Molecular_orbital#Analogy helps or hurts the understanding of the article? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need review the complete article for this, will do later. I want to go through the short ones first. -Barras (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just making the notice here: One of my GAs is currently up for demotion. I urgently need to fix the article to meet the standards, this means the reviews will have to wait a bit. -Barras (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that you are busy in real life and have other wiki-projects. However, my mentorship is 43 days old, and I have been learning from you. I would hope that within another month, we could reach the point that I could be trusted sufficiently to "graduate" my mentorship. So, please to do not feel that you are facing a life-long duty to review my articles. I look forward to working with you when you have more free time. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, for blocking this IP.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 12:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting out

Hey Barras, I was just wondering, when you first started on Wikipedia, when you had no idea what to do, what did you do? Did you try reverting vandalism or creating articles? I just want some advice because I have been constantly trying to get rollback because the rollback in twinkle is basically impossible to find (for me anyway). Even patroller would be good, I just want an element of responsibility, and to play my part in simple wikipedia, because it feels like I'm not being noticed at all. Advice? Orashmatash (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest to start with improving articles. Help is everywhere needed here. DYK, WP:PGA, WP:PVGA, WP:PR as well as Category:Cleanup needed, Category:Pages with complex sections and Category:Articles lacking sources could use help. All those pages are good to start with. Rollback rights can be granted when needed as for patroller roghts, you should be familiar with formatting articles and all those stuff, which reminds me that Special:NewPages could also use some help, and the articles listed here need mainly only few fixes. -Barras (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'll try it out. Thanks a lot for your help :) P.S. Feel free to talk to me in German, I am fluent. Orashmatash (tc) 21:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff Mills

Hi Barras, hows things? Could you please copy/paste or undelete the Jeff Mills article and put it in my sandbox? Hoping it can be worked on there, instead of mainspace... Thanks in advance Normandy (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. -Barras (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danke schoen! Sind Sie aus Deutschland? Ich bin nach Berlin zum nächsten Monat! (thats not how I would have said it, but I've trusted Google... I'd have said "Kommen sie aus Deutschland?", assuming that is totally wrong?) Another "Kennedy" moment; Ich bin ein Berliner! Normandy (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red bull X2010

Like you did with Jeff Mills, can you please do the same with Red bull X2010?-- (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In German: Wie hast du mit Jeff Mills, kannst du bitte das gleiche tun mit Red Bull X2010 (Thank's to google) (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of sequence review

Many thanks for clearing six articles in one day! I am sorry to bother you, but User:Gotanda has concerns with Line notation and the fact that it has only one blue link. So I have quickly developed this stub: User:Racepacket/Simplified molecular input line entry specification. If we can move it to article space quickly, we can keep him happy. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe not the right place to add this, Barras, but I'd like to keep the discussion in one place. The real "out of sequence" is the continued copying over of complex En articles when there are still many that need improvement from July. The articles that were discussed for possible deletion have been left with no improvement at all for quite some time now. Why continue to lengthen the queue when no work is happening at the front of the line? Sorry to interrupt when you have clearly marked your userpage as "busy". Gotanda (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will respond here, but Barras is free to add his own comments. First, we took each of the articles that were nominated for deletion, reviewed them and made necessary changes. See User talk:Barras#Articles. Second, we then moved three into my user space. The rest were brought up to Simple Wikipedia standards. Third, a number of those articles made reference to other articles that "helped" to clarify their meaning and to avoid "orphans." I then simplified those articles in my user space and placed them in two queues. (User talk:Barras#Current Status) Barras has reviewed many of the shorter articles. After changes are made, they are moved to article space. We decided to work through the shorter articles before returning to the longer articles, which include some that have been moved into user space. Could you please point out a single article that was listed for deletion and not either improved or userfied? If there is one, it is an accidental oversight. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, it was August 1, not July, but still. That would be most of the chemistry pages that were listed under "Advanced chemistry pages by user:Racepacket" by user:Macdonald-ross. Most are still not simple. E.g., The first five: Molecular orbital ‎ which I returned to userspace, last updated Sep 11, Stereochemistry last update Aug 13; Molecular_symmetry Aug 21; Electrocyclic_reaction very minor changes Aug 14 and 22; Mechanical stress Aug 7. I'd like to ask Barras or any other interested editor to encourage Racepacket to address the original problems first before adding more userspace articles. Gotanda (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Molecular orbital is in user space, so it will wait its turn.
  • Stereochemistry was cleaned up with assistance of User:Peterdownunder and User:Barras as of August 13.
  • Molecular symmetry was cleaned up with the assistance of User:Barras as of August 21.
  • Mechanical stress was reviewed and cleared as of August 5.
  • Electrocyclic_reaction probably could use another look.
The point is that we are working through the articles in a logical sequence and not in the order in which the articles were first created. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Define "cleaned up". None of those articles are simple in vocabulary or sentence structure. That can be defined by vocabulary lists and readability indices. But more importantly, the revisions after the initial deletion request have not fixed the original problems. Gotanda (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, to the extent that there are red links to background concepts that help the reader understand the material, we have added articles turning some of the important red links blue. (For example, I just went back to Electrocyclic reaction and was able to make a number of links blue.) Second, I think that the sentence structure is improved. Sentences have been shortened, independent clauses broken into separate sentences, and adverbs removed. Third, when a word is not on the word list, we have linked it to wiktionary entries. Fourth, in many cases, I have added photos or images to illustrate the concept. In some cases, I have added additional references.
I know the path of progress has not be a straight line, because I have received conflicting advice and misinterpreted some sample model articles. Clearly, the articles have changed from the En Wiki versions. They tell an interesting story. Whether they can be understood by a high school student or a chemist whose first language is not English remains to be seen. But we lack feedback from our target audience.
"Readability indices" don't work for chemistry articles with long chemical names. Such indices are not a substitute for feedback from the target audience. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A review of edits shows that many are minimal. Linking to Wiktionary is no substitute for simple writing. Readability indices are objective. Simply "changed" from En (if or when so) is not enough. Articles must be simplified. Regarding indices, even when I substitute one or two syllable words for polysyllabic chemistry terms, these articles often fail on readability. Your personal definition of "cleaned up" is not the same thing as simple according to the help pages, manual of style, and well-established practices on this wiki. Gotanda (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I am open to that possibility. At your request, I have described the method we used. It would be helpful if you could pick one article and give it a detailed critique on its talk page, so I can see what I missed. I can then apply the insight to the other articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK! There is a reason why I haven't touched any scientific stuff until Racepacket appeared here. I'm simply quite biased in that area and I understand the stuff. I'm used to scientific English when reading books, or as just right now being at a conference. I could bet that my reviews in those areas are far away from being perfect. I do my best with the reviews, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm perfect. I usually don't use any tools to determine whether an article is simple or not. I read them, think about it and that's it. I'm currently busy in real life, and don't get around with reviews. First, no new articles for now, not in user space, nothing. Try to re-read the existing stuff and change them to make them even simpler. When I'm back, this won't be the first stuff I will do, one of my articles, Adolf Hitler, has been proposed for demotion, and this has priority. If you, Gotanda, really have big doubts about the simplicity of articles in main space, then please move them back into Race's userspace and, if possible, leave him a review. That's it for now, I think. -Barras (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Barras. I know you are busy and have been working hard in this area as well. I will start some moves, but wanted to discuss first. Like you, I've a got some other work hanging over my head, so it will probably have to wait until next week. Please accept my apology for taking up your valuable time. Gotanda (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to add that linking v. difficult terms to other articles which are just as difficult does not count as a simplification. It leads to a circle of terms, none of which a diligent reader would be able to understand. That is what has been done on the pages I complained about. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Gotanda (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adolf H.

Adolf Hitler has been vandalised, but my rollback is not working! I suppose it must be a wiki 'improvement'... Anyway, over to you for the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ndash template

For edits like this, did you know that {{ndash}} adds a space before the dash, but no space after the dash? According to style manuals, dash spacing should be symmetric. That is, either one space (not two) before the dash and one space after, or else no space before the dash and no space after. So there is no situation where simply substituting the template for a hyphen comes out spaced normally. So at least one English Wikipedian wants to delete the template, because it confuses editors more than it helps them. For more explanation:


Hallo Barras, ich war gerade fragen, ob Sie daran interessiert wäre, bei der Verabschiedung mich. Es ist einfach, weil ich so viel zu lernen haben, und ich bin sicher, Sie könnten mich zu unterrichten. Ich möchte auch Sie, mir zu sagen, wenn du ich sollte für Benutzer-Rechte gelten, weil ich hart arbeite, um die Zulassung zur Rollback und Patroller denken. Hehe, I asked that in German because I am fluent in German, and it's cool. :D Orashmatash (tc) 19:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natürlich werde ich dich gerne adoptieren/dein Mentor sein (Bei Wikipedia ist das du üblich). Wenn du fragen hast, dann frag mich einfach. Gruß, -Barras (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vielen Dank Barras! Orashmatash (tc) 19:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]