User talk:Creol

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

Keep your head up. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

`Sorry to see you go. You were one of the best, if not the best, users on this site. Razorflame 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree, you were a island of saneness in this often insane wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This place just gets worse and worse. Good luck, hope you can stick around to edit stuff. It seems like we´ve all forgotten that we´re here to build an encyclopedia, not an empire or a Facebook mirror. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being an amazing editor, and please think about coming back after all the drama that has happened here finally blows over. MC8 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were the powerhouse of us. Actually I am being Sarcastic. TurboGolf 19:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good bye. Hope life can still make you happy:) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Wow I go away for a few weeks and.. honestly I thought you of all people would be the last one to leave. Oh well, good luck with whatever you do in the future! FSM Noodly? 15:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought the day would come. Creol, thank you very much for all you have done for our project. — RyanCross (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
For your outstanding efforts on this wiki. Good luck in your future endeavours. Chenzw  Talk  10:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, thought I had already posted here: Good luck IRL Creol. Don't be a stranger. Kennedy (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are really gone. :( We'll miss you, Creol. TheAE talk 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB[change source]

Dear Creol, even if you are not reading this, I would like to thank you for participating in my RfB, which ended with a tally of 21/5. I appreciate your support and will do my best in this new role. Thanks. Chenzw  Talk  07:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en:User talk:Creol

Just in case...[change source]

your still watching. Your edits are missed. Very warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[change source]

Welcome back, you were missed. I hope perhaps to see more of your project contribs.  :) Jon@talk:~$ 21:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sneak in and out alot.. been keeping to IP edits and alt accounts for the most part as it keeps my drama down and lets me just enjoy editting. Sinetimes I just have to log in to either accept the validation a non-IP account gets or take actions (moves) I can't do anon. Hate using this account most times for various reasons, but some times its just needed. --Creol(talk) 06:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Airport Weekend - January 20-23[change source]

We want to invite you to participate in the Big Airport Weekend on Jan 20-23. (See: WP:Big Weekend) The purpose of this weekend is to improve SEWP's coverage of airports and airport related articles. A few tasks and guidelines:

  1. Add {{Infobox airport}} to all airport articles
  2. To improve existing articles and stubs in the Category:Airports including subcategories.
  3. To add new articles on airports. (Any airport with regular commercial service or where a historic event happened is notable enough for an article.)
  4. Airports can be civilian, military, and anywhere in the world.
  5. Add BAW (for Big Airport Weekend) to the edit summaries to help keep track of the changes.
  6. Please use the {{inuse}} template to avoid edit conflicts with other BAW participants.

Barnstars will be liberally rewarded for your airport efforts. Let me know if you have any questions. Please join us to have fun and to improve SEWP. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![change source]

...for all the film --> movie changes! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 664 more pages on the list. (then the next jobs...) --Creol(talk) 22:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you're done with the flood flag ...[change source]

... could you please ask another administrator to take it off? I need to go to bed now. Thanks, -Orashmatash (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, at this rate, it could take all night anyway :) --Creol(talk) 01:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note: several hundred pages (18+ of them hundreds) later..

  • Film -> movie  Done - Likely to be stragglers due to regex set not to be destructive though (and pages hiding from the search)
  • == External links== and ==Links== ->==Other webpages==  Done
  • American meaning from/of the United States ([[United States|American]]  Done
  • {{infobox film}} and {{infobox Film}} -> {{Infobox movie}}  Done - Any future Infobox film links should be needed to be checked for film/movie changees

Busy day being a gnome.. --Creol(talk) 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[change source]

Thank you for the simplification of s-block.--Kc kennylau (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singers are musicians[change source]

Writing this here in case anyone gets confused on the reasoning for the cat change in NYC (and what looks to be inconsistency else where in the cat tree.)

Yes, singers are musicians. Their instrument is their voice. As such they can qualify as musicians. But this is not the best of situations. The main problem that arises is, for example, Jimi Hendrix. His is a guitarist (Musician) and a singer (also musician). Now in his case he would fall under guitarists and singers, but it is not always possible to safely split them. In many location based categories (say people of San Diego) there are not enough articles to warrant a separate singer category, or not enough of each instrument to warrant its own category (ie. Guitarists from New York City). In these cases, Musician is the first category in the break down from cat:people. Singers are broken out next if there is a need. Ideally, these would both fall under Musical entertainers (rare to use below country level), then Entertainers (NYC? sure, but most cities cant support it.. Many states can't), and finally people from <XXX>. The worst case is making Singers a subcat of musicians as this leads to either putting the person in the cat and subcat or ignoring the fact that Hendrix played guitar since he is a singer also. --Creol(talk) 07:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bridge Weekend[change source]

Your question here caused me to re-think my assumptions about the "Big Weekend" concept.

In mid-March, it will be my role to encourage participation in the Big Bridge Weekend (BBW). Tentatively, I plan to begin with a list which anticipates questions like yours.

DRAFT TEXT: Everyone is invited to create or expand articles and categories having to do with bridges of any kind, including a very wide spectrum of possible subjects:

Also, links to list articles may be helpful -- see here? What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. My feelings on Big Weekends is that it should have a solid topic but many different ways for people to take part in that topic as well as something to point to to give people ideas. This lets people find ways to take part that fall into their area of interest. Using the artillery example, I'm not a big fan of guns but could use the sci-fi aspect to find an interest. On a single very focused tartget (a single name) you pulled up mythology, geology, local features and international ideas.. nice mixture that gives people ideas on where they can take part. Other "bridges" could include movies and books (that deal with bridges - Terabithia, River Kwai), politics (Bridge to nowhere) science, sci-fi, music (bridge over troubled waters) as well as lists of notable bridges (historic, longest, highest, disasters) providing people ideas of what to work on. While the topic is precise, the ways to deal with it are many. Focusing on highly notable geographic bridges should probably be the top concern, but including other ways to approach the topic can help bring in more people. --Creol(talk) 00:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly said.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[change source]

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for taking part in the Big Artillery Weekend in February 2012. Seven editors created 38 new articles and made 319 edits to artillery related articles. Peterdownunder (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's already been said, but ...[change source]

It's really nice to see you editing again. You were the person to welcome me to simplewiki so I always hoped you'd return :D fr33kman 01:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula rasa / Blank slate[change source]

I replied on my talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Firefly fan, too![change source]

I never understood why Whedon went back to Fox for Dollhouse! :) But seriously, the QD tag doesn't say the subject isn't notable, it says the article doesn't say why it's notable. One of the articles I QD'd recently was for one of my favorite TV shows! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any browncoat would argue to the death that a tv series that Fox let on the air for 4 season has to be inherently notable just for that duration alone given Fox's track record. --Creol(talk) 07:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)``[reply]

Homare Sawa[change source]

Ezo Spruce, 1925-2011

Thank you for helping me better understand the category tree here. Please accept this bonsai as a token of appreciation. --Horeki (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by country[change source]

Hi, Creol. I just noticed the new category you created, Category:Pop music groups by country. Would you consider changing this to Category:Pop music groups by nationality? The subcategories reference nationalities (American, British, etc.) rather than countries (United States, United Kingdom, etc.). It's a fine point, but when I see "by country, I look for the US stuff near the bottom of the list instead of the top. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered it but looked at the existing structure and saw it was already set for "by county". I am actually to blame for that as it turns out as that is how I created the bands category years ago. If I remember correctly my thinking at the time it had to do with the fact that technically the bands origin is based on the country it was founded in (or in very rare cases what country they self-identify with) and not the nationality of the members (this would create issues with multi-nationality band members). For example - the BeeGees are an all English band, but were founded and are identified with Australia (though in all likelihood citizens there but nationally English). I think it also had something to do with the band being a separate identity/organization/something or other -A thing - , not the people in it. (hense dodging the issue as covered in WP:Categories). The band itself is in actuality separate from the people in it - the people can change, but the band is still the band. --Creol(talk) 10:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a side note as I noticed you removed one - I am adding certain red cats were I see that they will be needed if/when I get to that stage. Mainly these are <music genre> bands or People from <location> cats with all likelihood of being needed but I can't get to ATM due to my work on Band infoboxes/cats. --Creol(talk) 10:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futhorc[change source]

After your comment on the talk page this morning, I found time to provide a workable stub of Futhorc. Since I am not familiar with the subject matter it is a "lookup-translate-simplify" process for me. Feel free to extend, as you see fit. --Eptalon (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got...[change source]

... a mail. Oh, and btw, do you want this talk page unprotected? -Barras talk 22:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The path my life is taking, I will likely only be around until the end of the month, maybe a little more or less. No reason to get into anything long term. The protection isn't needed, but wouldn't be a bad thing to get back up when I head out.. --Creol(talk) 22:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's understandable. I've unprotected tha page for now, in the case a non-autoconfirmed user needs to contact you. Just prod me when you leave/want it protected again. -Barras talk 22:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bridge Weekend[change source]

Dites alors, qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire?

Team Barnstar.png Working together barnstar
Queensborough bridge nyc 1907.gif
Thanks for your contributions during the "Big Bridge Weekend" in March 2012.

Acknowledging your work as one of six contributors who created 20 new articles and 13 new categories in a context of 309 changes in bridge-related articles. --Horeki (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Jazz musician?[change source]

Hi Creol, I notice you have changed the cat for James Morrison from a jazz musician to an American jazz musician. I am sure he hasn't changed nationality. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate when they sneak in like that.. must have seen the "A... musician" and clicked too fast.. Thanks for catching that. --Creol(talk) 07:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your change to[change source]

About this diff on West End. We have a separate article West End theatre, so I made this one about the area. Maybe they should be merged? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I was thinking about moving the article over to that name as it is what the article is about... If I had followed through, I would have noticed this. Ah well. Merging or just a straight replacement will probably be needed. West End could be shifted to a disambig or just redirected to West End theatre as more often than not, if people talk about West End, they mean the shows/venues and not the London district. --Creol(talk) 10:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our latest vandal[change source]

That was not a valid change -- I don't think he meant "toilet" as in the room, I think he meant it as in the object one sits on. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the second time.. the way it was cropped in the popup, the other definition of toilet made total sense. --Creol(talk) 09:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[change source]

I hope what you indicate above does not come to pass, since you are truly an asset to this project. If it's unavoidable, let me just say a sincere thank you for the help, thoughts, and effort you've given both myself and this project. And for the downright fun you bring... I can't tell you how many times I've almost choked on food reading some of your edit summaries. Osiris (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for adminship[change source]

Hi Creol, I see you are a regular editor and admin here. Could you please tell me what is the criteria for adminship in Simple Wikipedia? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a former admin (stepped down a while ago) not current one, but Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship should provide the information you are looking for. --Creol(talk) 08:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. English Wikipedia requires at least 10000 edits for adminship, is there any such criteria here? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no set numbers for edits or time but as a general guideline from past admin requests, 1K+ edits and 1 month active tend to be the bare minimum for most people to get a good idea of how they feel about a certain candidate. A demonstrated understanding of policy and how things are done here usually comes through past edits. While the numbers are not totally important, the edits do provide insight into the person so more edits usually means more insight. --Creol(talk) 08:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One criterion might be a good command of English.
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thief[change source]

You stole my make work project! LOL -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was either that or follow behind you picking up the cats. plus I can't actually do the archive pages themselves as they are protected, so i'm in the process of doing page 2 on its talk page so you can move it over and hog all the credit for it later. --Creol(talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was going to do the cats after I got them all sorted out because the archiving I believe automatically will do the cats. But its all good. I was only joking around. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got that from the "LOL" :) The cats are automatic on those created by the template (for the most part, someone may have found a way to break it.. ) but the older ones are a bit more annoying. quick copy/paste and they were all taken care of. Took longer to count the entries in the pages (I was using your contribution page rather than the archive page.. ) to get a count on if successful or not. --Creol(talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hokkaidō region highlighted in dark green
Hokkaidō island highlighted in brown
Hokkaidō prefecture highlighted in off-red color

Regions of Japan[change source]

Please reconsider your merge of Shikoku region and Shikoku in light of the context explained here.

Compare Hokkaidō and Hokkaidō region and Hokkaidō Prefecture.

Related pages include:

See also Library of Congress Country Studies, Japan (LOC), "Geographic Regions"; retrieved 2012-4-3. The LOC overview features this subject.

What you misperceive as redundant is important in the Japanese context. --Horeki (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a wiki when one page is so small like this it is very common to merge them when one article is essentially a duplicate of the information on the other. It is why we have redirects on the wiki. His merge was appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the inter-related contexts:
The maps at the right are representative of three distinct sets of maps which parse the Japanese understanding of their home.

The similarities in these maps are obvious, but what matters somewhat more are the relationships which are revealed in comparison with other maps in the series. In other words, there is more than one series of maps which look the same except for the areas highlighted in dark green or brown. The pattern is similar in the series which highlights each of the main Japanese islands in off-red color.

What can we do together to prevent the likelihood that others will continue to mis-perceive a problem because of mis-framing? --Horeki (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand what you are saying, however, when the information we have on the wiki is the same in both articles we merge it into a single article that can cover the information of both subjects. Until such a time as there is enough information on each subject that they can later be separated out again into their own articles. Right now the information in both is pretty much the same. I realize that they are different things, but right now the articles are similar enough that there doesn't need to be two. This is quite a separate issue from the what you are talking about. Remember the goal of Simple Wikipedia is to be Simple. That involves many things, one of them being its better to have information on one page if possible instead of many pages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso -- Yes, exactly, we are on the same page when you explain that "the goal of Simple Wikipedia is to be simple" ... which means that two articles are needed as clickable links in different usage contexts. For example, compare
In this instance, a merge creates a "carousel of complexity" by confusing the carefully constructed network of hyperlinks which each article exists to serve. For example, please review User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2012#Hokkaidō Prefecture. --Horeki (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't disrupt anything because you explain on the merged page the situation. That it takes up the whole island and that geographically speaking they are the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso -- The word "slugfest" is not fully a part of my vocabulary, but I think I begin to "get it" ....

There is no practical response to "geographically speaking they are the same thing" because it shows how much of what I wrote above is unread or ignored. In this strained context, the word "no" becomes a constructive step.

No. --Horeki (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think you are ignoring what I am saying. Yes they are different things, but they occupy the same area. (ie they are geographically the same). Everything you have posted above goes to show that. In the article you then go on to explain the three different distinctions. You then edit the redirects so they point to the section of the merged article that is appropriate and then the usage context is still there. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first question here would be: What information, aside from the definition of a region in Japan, is provided by the region article that does not also apply to the island?
While the island will have a history that includes things that does not apply to the region, I can not see how anything about the region (other then the name region) does not apply to the island as well as the region. Is there a historical and cultural context to the region? Certainly. Does it not also apply to the island? I am not see this to be true. With the other 5 regions, it is certainly true, but in the three where they are geographically identical, they have the same history and culture.
How is the history and culture of Shikoku region differ from that of Shikoku? It is not a question of these differences being important, but of if they are numerous enough to create an article about. Is there enough information that it would be too much to explain it on the page for the island and use one article to explain both the island and the region? Looking at the English version of the subject, I can't see enough information to require a separate article. Apparently they can't either as the region(s) is(are) also a direct there. (and looking at the history of both redirects, they were never anything but redirects - no one there has ever thought to create a separate article) The only differences they point out is that the region also includes the small islands off the coast of the main island. This can easily be added to the main article without the need for a second article to explain it further.
As to the linking, all but 6 of the links to the region are from one template. One change fixes all of them. Of the 6, one is a "for other uses" on the island article which is not needed. Four are in the infoboxes for the four prefectures. The last in on list of regions.. which lists 9 main regions and may be an issue itself as there are only 8.
As to simplicity, being simple does not mean expecting the reader to be unable to read the introduction and understand why they were brought to that page. The introduction should action state that is is both an island and a region of Japan (with proper links to both). Redirects are meant to deal with both different names for the same thing (not entirely accurate here) and for single articles providing the same information of separate but very similar subjects (which this is). The redirect may just point to a specific part of the article (in this case the regions section - but see below) but as most of the information is identical, linking to the entire page is better.
From all I have read (mostly your links above, with some help from enwp), I just do not see how there is enough information on the separate identity that is the region to provide for an article. All the information that is separate is barely 2-3 sentences that can be used in the article for the island and would likely not even need a section of its own.
And speaking of section of its own, the one on Shikoku is both misleading and in need of copy editing. It implies that the four prefectures are regions and not prefectures. 2 of which are badly linked.

Thanks for the Cats[change source]

Creol, I noticed you added/corrected a bunch of categories to articles on writers that I had started. Thanks! Unlike a lot of people here, I had no experience on En before Simple. I really didn't notice the categories much at the start and still need to work on that area. Much appreciated, Gotanda (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a wikignome at heart. When I got here, we had 3K+ articles in the "needing Categories" special page, so I made that my focus. Over the years, the cat tree has become a home of sorts.. it keeps me occupied :). --Creol(talk) 04:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hail, fellow cat maven! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page[change source]

I need to change the page name of Don Freud to Don Freund but I see no 'Move' tab. Please help me with this. --Kelpso1 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Creol(talk) 04:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome "back"[change source]

Hey Creol. I missed you when you left. I find it funny you say on your user page that you tell people to go away "but I let most of them come back later". Odd approach. I'm sure it's meant to be funny, bu this is "Simple English" Wikipedia. Still, good to see you back, and using your account rather than that poxy IP address. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity...[change source] is template {{Location map Algeria}} related to the Big World Heritage Site weekend? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*gasp* Cheating? LOL ;P Osiris (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a missing template for the articles Tipaza and Tassili n'Ajjer, both of which are WHS articles. It was needed for the clean up of two WHS sites (and hence should count double). As a matter of fact, its sole purpose at this time (the only pages using that location map) are WHS articles. --Creol(talk) 01:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BHW work[change source]

Big Heritage Weekend

Please accept this special barnstar for tremendous work on categories and other work during the World Heritage Site Big Weekend. You made over 160 edits. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia[change source]

Thanks for putting the reminder on the dewiki project page. I know I tend to let things slide, so it's good that you reminded them. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template fix on Billy Tipton[change source]

I was wondering why it wasn't displaying properly. Was about to ask someone when you fixed it. Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between "Infobox musical artist" and "Infobox musical artist 2"? How would I find something like that for myself in the future? Cheers! Gotanda (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, was answering this question as you were asking it.. I only know it was there because I created it to help with all the work I was doing on getting US performers/band categories cleaned up a while back. Easier to slap a 2 on it than translate the entire thing couple hundred times.--Creol(talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of AWB[change source]

Although I never use bots, and know nothing about them, I have a query about AWB, which you are currently 'driving'. I see it sets back the setting I use on infoboxes for the image files from my larger settings to a smaller setting. Now, I understood from our discussion of image sizes a year or so back that the standard setting, which I think was 220px, was not mandatory, just the default. And if it's not mandatory, then I want to be able to use my own judgement. After all, I'm putting the time in to construct new pages, am I not? My reason for raising this is:

  1. Some images are too small at that size (IMO), owing to the nature of the original photo or graphic.
  2. Graphics are a way of encouraging readers with limited language capability to continue looking at a page. They are more important than some editors give them credit, and I have probably added well over 5,000 onto Simple pages from Commons.
  3. Infoboxes have a standard width of 250px (or so I think), so there is always enough room to expand the graphic to 250px max without widening the box.

Oh, I suppose my question is, why do it? Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything over 230px will widen infoboxes because of the white space that is put between them and the edge of the box. Images in all infoboxes should be the same size unless it would unduly cause the picture to pixelate in which case you would make the picture smaller not larger. Larger is never really an option in an infobox. Outside of the box set them to whatever size best helps the article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waheed Murad[change source]

You planning to fix this? :) --Auntof6 (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had to dodge e/c's to get that in there.. got a bit sticky.--Creol(talk) 09:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check something[change source]

Hey, sorry to interrupt. If you've got a sec, can you take a look at the image under Curitiba#Sports. What am I missing? Osiris (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. I found it. Sorry. Osiris (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[change source]

Hello Creol,

As you know, we have worked on this project for a very long time now. Once again, I want to thank you for your contributions; and should you decide to come back at a later date, do not hesitate; you know this project needs editors, and you are among the best we can get. All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said my farewell at the end of March I think, but- Good luck IRL! All the best, and please come back should you ever feel like it! Osiris (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

n-dash between dates or words[change source]

AWB replaces – with {{ndash}}, but the two are not equivalent. So, 1859–2000 becomes 1859–2000. It is obvious, and clear in the Style Guide, that the initial space is erroneous. Therefore, this aspect of AWB needs to be changed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was his own custom changes because AWB normally changes the html tag for ndash into an actual ascii –. I was a bit confused by his changes back when he had been making them myself. Either way I fixed the Template:ndash so it no longer leaves the space. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Template:Country alias France[change source]

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Template:Country alias France, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was deprecated or replaced by a newer template and are completely unused and not linked to. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self[change source]

fix Karen Gillan

  1. incorrect comma usage (serial comma in British English list of 2 items - wrong twice), comma separating 2 verbs with one independent clause, host of other comments tossed around randomly at times.. Comma cannon got loaded up for that one.
  2. 2007 is not a part of the title of London Fashion week.
  3. Webcast was on a specific website.
  4. examine all other changes.. --Creol(talk) 19:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for taking an interest in my changes. Please point out the issue in British-English, and they will be amended.--Chip123456 TalkChanges 20:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The key point on British English in this case is that they tend to disapprove of serial commas. Serial commas are pretty much a North American academia thing - Commonwealth English and US journalism styles frown on the usage. In the case of the Gillan article, you also used a serial comma on a list of only two items. Even US academia reserves it for 3 items or more. (just to extend - serial comma is the comma in list before words like "and" and this is dealing with non-ambiguous usages where the comma is needed to properly separate the list which is a different can of worms). "actor and model" does not need a comma. Second would be the issue of separating a sentence which contains a single noun and two verbs in non-independent clauses (both verb clauses use that same noun) - this should not use a comma. The comma is only used if there are two independent clauses ie. nouns in both. Overall the comma usage throughout the rest of the article was also overboard. Its a common occurrence of either too little commas or commas everywhere. Many style manuals even disagree at times on it and finding a comfortable middle ground can be tricky. Also, broadcast is the proper past-tense for of broadcast - broadcasted has gained colloquial usage and some dictionaries do list is as an alternative, but broadcast is still the proper term (as with forecast, both based on cast - you don't say casted - cast is correct in all tenses/combinations). Overall, the article per this edit used the grammer/punctuation of the English wiki version (with applicable simplification) and generally passed their (much more annoyingly precise) standards for proper grammar. (although, yes.. there were typos/missed tweaks in the translation - two of which you caught in your fixes) --Creol(talk) 06:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I must if misread it, as I thought it also said she was a presenter, my mind playing tricks on me again. I find that odd, I'm British, and I always use Oxford commas. --Chip123456 TalkChanges 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AAACK![change source]

Look at all those Unreferenced BLP tags! I was making some progress in the Category and now you go and mark up a bunch more... Just giving you a hard time. Awesome job finding all those articles and getting them tagged. Thanks for the work. --Tbennert (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list I'm working off has about 9900 more articles to look at, so a plethora of new ones will eventually move your way. :) Manually checking (AWB loading/prepending with manual inspection of each article) each article in Category:Living people that doesn't have a ==References== tag and wasn't already tagged is going to take some time. I was actually just curious how bad the situation was and just (as usual) got carried away. --Creol(talk) 05:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with that. Because if we are following en's lead which I don't see why we wouldn't. References can also be found in the ==Other websites== section. Atleast for the purpose of avoiding BLP prods. The references there usually don't go towards notability but they do cause the article to avoid the BLP prod process since they are considered referenced. I should note, that the other websites of course have to talk about the subject and mention something that is in the article. ie they have to be a reference for some fact in the article. So not every Other website works but a lot of them do. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been keeping an eye there. It's most obvious on the NBA/NHL players articles where they have a link to their league profile. If those are present, I skip the article. Some are harder to glance at and see if they should be valid. Worse is the ones that have it, but have no information in the article to even be validated by the league.. In many cases where unsourced doesnt apply, it should have been {{BLP sourses}} instead and anyone going over the category can switch it over in a heartbeat if they can justify at least one source present. (and thankfully, we don't have a blp prod process here). I do imaging the IMDb tag could be claimed as a source actually.. its cast lists are commonly accepted, and while not a reliable source, there is nothing on the tag stating reliable (much like our QD for notability only needs a claim, not a valid notibility.) --Creol(talk) 17:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup that is exactly what I was getting at. Just wanted to point it out before you flew through too many more articles since I noticed IMDB links on a lot of the actors. Anyways keep up the good work as usual. :) -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just[change source]

to let you know, the offer from above still stands. If you want, just let me know. -Barras talk 13:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[change source]

Bummer. Don't know whether there were any others. Osiris (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I have a knack at finding things that didn't get caught before.. At work, I'm being told every day that "everythings done" but the first 2-3 things I check seem to always need attention.. It's my superpower.--Creol(talk) 23:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that list that you asked for -- comparing the lists of transclusions, I get about 1140 pages using the infobox but not using any of those date templates. So... over half of them. Osiris (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.. Thats a lot of tweaking.. and it doesn't even get to the ones who use the templates but also added the location. Lots of gnomish work there. --Creol(talk) 23:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[change source]

Music barstar.png The Music Barnstar
For fixing the infoboxes and parameters on all those musician articles! Auntof6 (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa[change source]

Go accept. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Creol 2. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the nomination, no thanks. --Creol(talk) 19:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? A number of people have wanted to do it. We could use you and I know you could use them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should really accept it. -Barras talk 19:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly content the way things are.--Creol(talk) 19:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well its all but a formality I think. If you change your mind just send me a message or nom yourself even. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schalkau[change source]

Hello, I have given a lengthy explanation on my talk page, but to make things short, in this context "Amt" simply means adminstrative division; so that's probably the the English/US counties, except that it was probably much smaller: The town, plus an area around it, that it directly controlled. I have adapted the article, too. --Eptalon (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review[change source]

Hello. I was wondering if you could do me a favor and look at the four articles I've created (listed at my user page) and tell me if they are what is desired here at simple, or if not, what needs to be done to improve them. I'm new to simple, but I do have some experience at the normal english wiki. Thanks in advance! Tazerdadog (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith and Nadir looked fine (minor tweaks here and there). REEs, I'm going over now. Given its size, it could take a bit. There may be issues with the level of simplification there.. Right now, I'm hunting down the broken references. I'll likely get to the fourth article next. --Creol(talk) 08:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cities in Alaska[change source]

Changing the cities in Alaska to their "full" names is not necessary. Look at the respective pages on the normal Wikipedia. They have it abbreviated as "St.", and it's best to be consistent with that. Qwerasdfzxcv1234 (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The respective pages on the "normal" wikipedia are written in a different language. Their titles are often not simple and must be changed. The English Wikipedia lists 7 entries for the abbreviation St. The reader (especially ESL readers) should not have to take an abbreviation in context to hopefully understand its meaning. One of the aims of Simple English is avoid ambiguity whereever possible. --Creol(talk) 03:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ReachOut Healthcare America[change source]

Which words at ReachOut Healthcare America do you feel are difficult, or could be swapped with easier words? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • American should be linked to United States not American (US is only part of the Americas)
  • company, manages , headquarters, coordinates, "dentist vans", schools, checkups, "that do business", screened, "nursing homes", foster programs, group homes, mental health facilities, "linked with", complained, superintendent, letter, mobile, students, "lots of", website, essays, nurse, elementary school, principal

Some just need links, some are less common meanings of words (letter, screen), some just tend to confuse (lot is a noun, adverb and even a verb.. which lot? many is a simpler choice to lots of). Dentist I left off the list as Dental clinic is linked, but it probably should be linked as well.

  • Ken Alltucker of the Arizona Republic said that some parents at the schools said that ReachOut dentists did dental work without telling the parents, but the main reason was that ReachOut did not give good care after the dental work was done because the dentists only came to the school two times per year.

50+ words in one sentence adds to the difficulty. As it is not a direct quote, it can be reworded and split up. Also "of the" may be a bit off. Explaining the start better could help. Ken Tucker, a reporter for the newspaper Arizona Republic, said ... He said the main reason.. Tucker said this was because ... Many "saids" but it breaks up information into smaller, more easily understood, sections. --Creol(talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! I changed "essay" to "letter" (the real original word was "testimonial") - I'll try breaking up sentences WhisperToMe (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[change source]

Your comment on Eptalon's talk page was so well put that I feel the need to thank you for it. I did not want to add it to the page as I think that would just feed the drama merchants without advancing the argument. Again, well said. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box[change source]

Creol, thank you for your comment at WIkipedia:Simple talk#Succession boxes. I am responding here because the thread is already too long. My guess is that others are likely to be discouraged if I add more.

  • B. In my opinion, format consistency in large cohorts classes or categories of articles is a trivial issue with non-trivial consequences. Do I need to explain more?
  • The Creol-inspired succession box model has been replicated in 200+ articles. This variant differs from {{sequence}} and {{succession box}}. Its graphic format supports a double-line borders (and/or an unlined border); and its elongated shape is easily scanned. In contrast, both {{sequence}} and {{succession box}} have single-line borders and a compressed box shape.
  • There are "sequence boxes" (ordinal conversion tables) in all Japanese era articles (and 14 others ). If the words "sequence boxes" (ordinal conversion table) are unclear, what is a better wiki-term for this?
  • C. In the RfD, Chenzw commented, "Keeping {{sequence}} is actually preferred to keeping {{succession box}} because {{sequence}} in its current state uses the {{s-ttl}} series of templates ..." Does this not suggest that there may be an unwanted problem?

Is it not both reasonable and timely to invite general, open-ended discussion about this? Is it not good to consider both global and specific applications as we work toward consensus?

If no one cares one way or the other, fine. If there is consensus about doing something differently, that's fine too. --Ansei (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of my problem was that after reading the opening sentence and looking at the RfD, I really didn't see anything I would consider to be questions. The use of the term cohorts was also confusing as its meanings (excluding the botany one) deal with groups of people, not other types of groups. As I stated in my reply, I only re-coded the table for that series of articles to change it from HTML coding to wikitable syntax though I am currently working on a suggestion on formatting the table to try and clean up the look some. --Creol(talk) 19:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for investing time in this coding task. If it helps, please consider these opinions.
  • I liked "your" succession box format last spring.
  • I like that the succession box coding supports both double-line borders (and/or an unlined border). Perhaps my preference for the double lined box is only because is contrasts with the "sequence box" (ordinal conversion table)?
  • I much prefer the succession box's elongated shape because, for me, it seems to be more readable. It seems to be more easily grasped at a glance.
  • I dislike the compressed box shapes of {{tl:sequence box}} and {{tl:succession box}}.
As you ponder what to suggest, please give some thought to how the proposed format might work in
I look forward to your suggestions. --Ansei (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the problem my word choice caused, please notice the line drawn through the term "cohort" above.

Instead, the words class or category have been used.

If it is convenient, please review just one more diff here at Shōwa period‎. How does this look to you? --Ansei (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new format you are using looks a lot cleaner and easier to read. --Creol(talk) 18:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query[change source]

Dear Creol, hi, sorry to bother you with this. A general query that I had please-- I started an article sometime ago on the Pakistani poet/writer Hakim Ahmad Shuja and then some other editor also added a photo image of the poet from Wiki media commons. However, now I see that this has been deleted altogether even from Wikimedia commons, as well as the Simple English. I wonder why? From what I saw and read about the image's status it didnt seem to be problematic or of dubious provenance? It was shared with a proper license or permission and detailed explanation of its source. It was a rather nice photo and was looking good here. Can anything be done to have it back or not? Thanks and Regards, Hamneto (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Hamneto[reply]

The image in question was speedy deleted at commons because it did not have all the needed information. In this case, it was missing the source of the image. It would be hard to prove licence and permission with no one knows who actually is responsible for the creation of the image. Stating a licence and giving permission on the image page can be done by anyone so I can imagine care is needed to make certain the claims made are valid. --Creol(talk) 17:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about creating some topic groups of articles[change source]

First I wanted to say thanks for those follow up edits to those articles. Also, Before I start being an irritation to folks, I thought I would ask first. What are the rules here about creating groups of articles. There are several groups of articles that could easily be created from EN and nI could do them in fairly short time. For example, there are about 1000 articles (955 I think) that relate just to the Mordellistena genus. Most of them look like this example. They are short but have at least a reference and an infobox. Do you think it would ruffle anyones feathers if I started moving these groups over? Just to clarify I am trying to target only those that have references. If they don't have at least one reference I tend to skip them but a lot are pretty short. Kumioko (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have had users create/import large numbers of stubs on a topic in the past (see Category:Cities in Switzerland‎). For the most part, the articles have very little useful information and the mass creation of new stubs does not tend to be accepted well. --Creol(talk) 18:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I think one big difference is those Swiss ones don't have a reference associated. No problem though, that's why I asked. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the argument is one that happens a lot here. Once they are here we usually don't mind them since there is no point deleting what is a notable topic. But people who mass create them tend to get a bad reputation pretty fast cause it does ruffle a few feathers. Only time I can think of that we mass deleted any mass created articles were articles on asteroids by a user named User:Razorflame. And in that case I think it was more to send a message to him than because they needed to be deleted. So yeah while you can create them, probably not a good idea if you are seeking to avoid unpleasantness. In a semi-automated fashion that is. If you created them slowly over time people probably wouldn't notice all that much. Especially if you added some meat to them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no worries, I was just trying to knock out some easy win stuff. I suspected it might be annoying to some (there's is always someone annoyed about that sort of thing) so that's why I asked first. I'll just keep chiseling away at stuff manually then. It seems like such a waste of time and technology but non biggie. Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Category:Greenlandic people[change source]

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Category:Greenlandic people, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have {{wait}}ed this one, but since it was quick deleted well before being empty for 4 days that's not an option. Also given that it should not have been cleared out in the first place is another issue. --Creol(talk) 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was about to look into it and repopulate it if valid and restore it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got 3 entries (list of PMs, one PM and the national team. Was about to file the RfUD on it. --Creol(talk) 16:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And dear god.. placing the list of PMs under Danish peoople is akin to placing List of presidents of Ireland (or India) under British people as they used to be ruled by them.. --Creol(talk) 16:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was why I was going to look into it. Was curious where the pages that were in it had been placed. Was concerned they had been placed in the Danish category and they had been. So I have reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greenland is still a dependency of Denmark, the Danish queen is the de jure ruler. Just because they have self-governance does not mean they are independent. I think overall the situation is similar to that of Puerto Rico and the United States, or that of the Faroe Islands (and Denmark, again). --Eptalon (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any trouble I caused. My understanding was that Greenland is owned by Denmark, and that therefore anything Greenlandic is also Danish. I wasn't thinking in terms of ethnicity. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Template:Unit metre[change source]

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Template:Unit metre, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alveolata[change source]

You're right, of course, and thanks for fixing it. I just noticed that a category had appeared on my talk page and didn't bother to figure out why. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Category:Blizzard Entertainment[change source]

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Category:Blizzard Entertainment, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that Blizzard Entertainment, Category:Blizzard video games (7 pages), Leeroy Jenkins and DofA don't add up to the needed 3 articles... --Creol(talk) 16:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first two were in the category which would equal two entries because we only count what is directly in the category. She can't be blamed that she didn't know about the other two since they weren't already in the category. That being said the deleting admin should have read the note on the category that it had just been emptied and that it should wait the 4 days. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She can't be blamed for having not look at what links to the main page of the category (DotA links to Blizzard as well as several othe off-topic articles) prior to deciding there weren't enough links so it should be deleted. As for Leeroy, she was the one to remove the red cat for World of Warcraft from it and not put it in the Blizzard category. Special:WhatLinksHere found both of them with minimal research in a matter of minutes. --Creol(talk) 20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. As I work through these, I'm learning a lot about what others expect. I actually did see the DotA and Leeroy articles, but I didn't feel they fit well under Blizzard so I didn't add them. However, I respect that someone else does think they fit, so I removed the QD from the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idealy, Blizzard Entertainment should have sub-cats for each of its 3 main games as well as a games subcat. This is because certain things are not technically part of the game but are certainly associated with the fictional universe the game encompasses. (Warcraft novels, for example) We don't at this time have enough to fully support this, so need to limit it to the "best category" option. This is much like Star Wars - just a movies category can't cover the whole thing - 6 movies (so far), animated series, tv movies and special, comics, characters and way too many novels to count (closing on 300).
Leeroy is all WoWarcraft. Of the 12 million-ish warcraft accounts, I would hazard a guess over 10 million know the name. He needs to be tied to WoW but isn't a game. Ideally Category:World of Warcraft is correct, but barring that, Blizzard is the next step up.
Extended content
(and actually Category:video game character is kind of sketchy. He is a character in a video game, but he is a player's personal avatar and not an official character of the game itself. Technically, it is correct but its a stretch - Similar to calling someone's Star Trek cosplay character a Star Trek character. It is, but it isn't.
DofA is a Warcraft 3 mod. It is a modified way to play Blizzards Warcraft 3 and its expansions. While not created nor supported by Blizzard, it was created using WC3's built in editor and only plays with WC3. It has also been extensively used in Blizzard sanctioned events (BlizCon). Ideally, its Category:Warcraft but again, the parent cat is the best option we have. --Creol(talk) 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand. I just don't agree that those fit there, and I don't think I'd do it differently if something similar comes up in the future. I won't undo them, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question[change source]

I have a question, I can't seem to find a User warning COI template. As which I don't think exists, do you think you can import that userwarning template to the Simple Wikipedia please from the English Wikipedia here. Thank you, --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Try {{COI}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear god, no. Do not try that as its completely off base. --Creol(talk) 22:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's not a user warning template (I missed that part of the question), but it's not completely off base! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is a template.. It just doesn't do what he wants, say what he wants or go where he wants to put it. It would also add the users talkpage to a maintenance category saying that user needs to be fixed.. --Creol(talk) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay! I made a mistake! So sue me! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made the import request at the admin notice board as when I turned in my mop that flag went with all the others. (and it is only temporary here so not worth the effort to keep getting it every time you need it). --Creol(talk) 22:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thanks. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could just get the mop itself back and not have to worry about it being temporary. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Category:Professional boxing organizations[change source]

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Category:Professional boxing organizations, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki work[change source]

Since you're one of the people who worked on User:Auntof6/Adding simple interwikis on enwiki, please see my question on the talk page and respond there. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops![change source]

Thanks for this! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Titles of Movie Related Articles[change source]

For what particular reasons were a few recent articles changed to article titles using the term movie? For example, Jagged Edge was changed to Jagged Edge (movie), Red Dawn was to Red Dawn (1984 movie). September 1988 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The titles chosen are ambiguous. In some cases very ambiguous. Jagged Edge is a movie, 2 bands and 2 albums. Red Dawn was less ambig, but still the name of 2 separate movies. Kiss of death.. its the name of 4 movies, a tv series, a tv episode, 3 albums and at least 7 songs as well as several actions and a couple other things. It is usually best if, in cases where the is more than one meaning, the title can be used to tell the different forms of the name apart. If one name is far and away the most popular and obvious meaning, that one may not need to have an (explained) add-on, but for most it is a good idea. --Creol(talk) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Articles Question[change source]

Hey Creol. If I had recognized there was more than one Edge of Darkness or more than one Wild Orchid, I would've included the term movie in the article myself. Also, characters' names were removed from the articles. Why is that? Finally, you seem to know more about movies than I do, that's how you put the director's names inside the article. September 1988 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

En:wp can be a good source to figure out if there is a need to disambig a title. You often are already getting the interwiki link from there, so you can see what format they used for the title. While we don't have to fallow their naming of an article, it is often a good idea. It helps us prevent having to deal with the creation of another article later that causes some discussion over which is the best topic to get the actual name and which should be moved to different titles. If they named it (film) there is probably a good reason. If they also dated the title, there is going to be more than one movie out there. This also helps when other people simplify pages they import from English as the links to other articles don't change as much. If an actors page on En:wp needs a link to Some Film (1934 film), it is easy to know that if/when we have that article, it will be at Some Film (1934 movie) and fix the link then. (and if it doesn't get fixed, the article will possibly/likely be redirected anyway so it should work still). En:wp will also provide the directors name as well as other major actors. The main cast should all be listed, not just the ones we have articles for already. Red linked article for missing actor is perfectly acceptable and often useful. They also prevent an issue that when the actor article is finally (possibly years later), no one has to go back and try to find other articles that person should have been mentioned/linked in but wasn't because there was no page at that time. I recall an article on a rom-com you wrote where the cast list was only 2 females. It seemed to imply the romance was between them since no male actor was listed (He didn't have a page). Much better to include the red-link than to imply something that was not true.
As with the character names, in the format used, they most often don't provide much information and the language is a bit clunky describing it all. If there were a separate cast section with a list of cast and characters, that would work fine but as is, knowing who played what part is not really that important when you don't really know what the part they played was. It is better to say the played the main character (if anything) than to say they play Jim because the reader doesn't know who Jim is. One major exception to this would be when including a plot summary. In that case, it's a good idea to show who is playing the part you are talking about after you have listed the actors in the intro.
For example:
Swordfish is a 2001 heist movie. It was directed by Some Guy. The movie stars Hugh Jackman, John Travolta and Other People.
Swordfish is the story of Stanley Jobson (Jackman). He is a hacker who is hired by a criminal mastermind (Travolta) to help rob a bank.
(its actually a thriller movie but heist helps emphasize the red-link issue above)
This way the reader has an understanding of who the character is that goes with the actors name. It provides useful context rather than plain facts that most often do not have any meaning to the reader. --Creol(talk) 13:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help[change source]

I've notice over the weekend that there had been many false deaths reported to many living people with an unreliable source. Recently User: has made a dramatic change to Debby Ryan and even copy and pasted on her article. If you view the history of Courteney Cox she has also been reported dead, but not true. Please help me stop this. User:TDKR Chicago 101 (talk).

Quick deletion of Green-economy[change source]

Ambox speedy deletion.png

The page you wrote, Green-economy, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Martin (American actor) English Wikipedia[change source]

Hi! I've noticed that the English Wikipedia has created my George Martin (American actor), but if you look at the articles history and writing format it appears that the user who created the article just copied and pasted of from the Simple English article. I've seen some Simple English articles that were deleted because of coping and pasting off from the English Wikipedia. Can you try to figure out if there's a way to well to something about it because I'm blocked from the English Wikipedia (because of not adding reliable sources). Thanks!!! - TDKR Chicago 101 (talk), 14 April 2013, 16:24 (UTC).

Spider categories[change source]

Hey. If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at User talk:Osiris#Categories and answering the query there? I'm an expert on neither spiders nor categories, so could use some help. Osiris (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self[change source]

Go through's new district changes with AWB.

replace: is a district of India.
with: is a [[district]] of [[{{subst:#property:P131}}]], [[India]].

(afk til likely Monday) --Creol(talk)

Shabbat[change source]

That was enormously helpful. Thank you.

  • When you say light cleanup, I take it you don't think I did a terrible job, so I appreciate that.
  • I see exactly what my main issues are. I think if I make the compare versions into a .pdf file, it will be a good guide for me going forward.
  • The missing word was celebrate. Don't ask me why I left it out. Since that word had a wikt link two lines above, and was the section title, I think I can leave it there in good conscience.

I'll see if anyone else responds in the next day or two, but I think it's close to publication now. Thanks again. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Winters[change source]

Hello my friend! I was wondering if you can check Jonathan Winters because I have been working a lot on that article because I want it to be a good article. Can you help me make this article a good one. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk), 12 May 2013, 19:05 (UTC).

A Simple Barnstar for you![change source]

Simple Barnstar 2.png The Simple Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded given for your kind-but-careful edits and advice changes and ideas on my first major page here, Shabbat. The article is simple because of you. Thank you very much! StevenJ81 (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting for evaluation[change source]

Sorry to bother you but since no else seems to be interested in reviewing the article against the WP:PVGOOD criteria, can you revisit Selena to see if it meets the criteria? It would really be appreciated. Best, jonatalk to me 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spanish[change source]

I noticed this template in the list of unused templates. You created it in February. Is it for a different purpose than Template:es icon?--Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was designed to be subst: into the language parameter for references as needed. It is a bit different as es icon does not link in the language and it adds parenthesis which look off with the cite template. Although with your change to the template, it can not be used as it would improperly categorize every page it got put on.
  • "{{es icon}} referencing" (in (in Spanish)). Missing or empty |url= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  • "{{Spanish}} referencing" (in Spanish). Missing or empty |url= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
The second was subst'd, which means I'll need to go back and re-edit the page to get rid of the extra info.--Creol(talk) 12:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I just put that category inside noinclude tags, and I'll check the similar ones -- sorry for not doing that to begin with. I don't see any inappropriate pages in the cat, so either they were taken care of or none got in there in the first place. It would be good to have a doc page for this template and the similar ones. Would you like to take care of that? If not, I wouldn't mind doing it. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddush[change source]

Hi. Any thoughts on this article before I publish? User:StevenJ81/Sandbox/Kiddush. Many thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! StevenJ81 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[change source]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Creol. You have new messages at Pratyya Ghosh's talk page.
Message added 14:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pratyya (Hello!) 14:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Broadway musicals[change source]

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Category:Broadway musicals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[change source]

I appreciate that you were trying to clear a category. But please don't comment errors that are not affecting readers of the page. If the errors aren't tracked in the category then they won't get fixed. These categories are as much about tracking errors as actually fixing them. Some of these categories will have pages that sit in them for lengths of time. Hiding the errors just to empty the category helps no one because then there is no visibility on the error. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't want the category to pop up, we can just do this. The embedded infobox itself doesn't use any data params so |decat=yes is probably a good thing to do. Osiris (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh there we go. Pefect, best of both worlds. I have asked on en to try and track down the error itself. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem of changing to a broken template which used different parameters and not correcting both issues. The template should not have been changed before it was working properly and the pages it was transcluded on should have been corrected after the template change. Commenting out the problem at least got people to look at the issue that was causing a backlog. --Creol(talk) 17:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't really a broken template. Some errors are just informational. I knew about the error and because it didn't affect readers and improved the box in other ways I made it go live. The pages using it were going to be updated but you jumped on it before I could. Either way I have now fixed the issue by correcting the error. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NBA Finals[change source]

As you can see, I moved it out of article space so I can make it better. I mostly needed the contents and sources and would like some time to work on it. Thanks. WorldTraveller101 16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[change source]

Would you like me to propose you to be an administrator? I have seen that you are a long time editor and active editor. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Reception123. You were and you will become a great administrator. Good luck if you accept it. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 07:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be rude or anything but it has been almost a month. I hope you do accept. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Creol hasen't replied to any of these messages in this section and that the contributor has been active after you sent the first message, the answer to the questions as mentioned above is probably no. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 06:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the sad truth to it. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes![change source]

Sorry you've been having health problems. Best wishes for a speedy recovery! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto from me as well. Hoping to see you back soon, but take care of yourself. Osiris (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was so saddened to see your user page. Hope you're doing better and feeling well! The world needs you and your pointy stick :-) Tygrrr (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[change source]

TDKR Chicago 101 has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project/People[change source]

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project/People and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Tvrage[change source]

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Template:Tvrage and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Japanese[change source]

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Template:Japanese and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:American musical theater actors[change source]

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:American musical theater actors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. GZWDer (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Episode[change source]

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Episode and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Hydriz (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:MSW3 Shoshani[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Template:MSW3 Shoshani, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Template:MSW3 Shoshani and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Alexis (country singer)[change source]

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Alexis (country singer) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Tbennert (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quick hello[change source]

you're often on my mind man, I have a lot respect for you. Hope your health is also much improved, and that you see this message one day. Gwib -(talk)- 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of The Fox and the Hound[change source]

Ambox deletion.png

The page you wrote, The Fox and the Hound, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Zaxxon0 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[change source]

Hello and good morning, good afternoon, or goodnight! (depending on your time zone). I just wanted to let you know I copied some content from an article you created List of SpongeBob SquarePants to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 2). Thanks for your time and have a good day. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 14:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]