User talk:Darkfrog24

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



Duplicate parameter[change source]

Hi, Darkfrog24. Your recent changes to Turms introduced a duplicate parameter in the last reference. The "page" parameter is used twice, with different values. Could you resolve that? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird that didn't show up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

baba fingo[change source]

Hello, here are sources, under kakava

https://www.dailysabah.com/life/2018/05/04/roma-culture-comes-alive-with-celebration-of-baba-fingo— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 19:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Romani People article[change source]

Hello and Thank you for your improving for Romani people articles...

I found something, should we introduce in the page antiziganism? I think it would be important isnt it?

See: https://bianet.org/english/militarism/243567-suspicious-death-of-soldier-on-parliamentary-agenda

https://stockholmcf.org/roma-conscript-dies-under-suspicious-circumstances-following-hate-speech-by-his-commander/

(Nalanidil (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time to read them right now, but they look like news articles about specific, recent incidents.
In my opinion, Antiziganism should contain either the most famous times a Roma person has been harmed for being Roma or general descriptions of the kind of thing that happens to Roma people because of antiziganism. For example, laws forbidding Roma people to come to or live in certain places, and laws that permitted other people to harm them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, as I understand in the Articles, this young man was hatred because he was a Roma

Nalanidil (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I think the rule here is WP:NOT. The Wikipedia article should not contain every example of anti-ziganism. It should only contain the very most famous examples from history. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thought....[change source]

You may be interested in this User talk:Nalanidil#June 2021. I am not sure how else to put it. That seemed pretty simple to me. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could be a problem but it could also be a noob or teenager who just needs a clue. My goal is to keep things harmless. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that is why I explained things as simply as I could without trying to be derogatory or degrading. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a teenager or noob, the point is that some articles have been there for several years without a source, but have not been deleted. But I am told, I have to find sources, even the sources that I bring are not enough for the article.

Nalanidil (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That's because Baba Yaga and Baba Fingo look similar but they're not. The question we ask about articles is "Does a source for this exist?" That's the rule, that the source must exist. Technically we don't have to list a source unless the content of the article is "challenged or likely to be challenged." Because Baba Yaga is so famous, because almost everyone who sees the article has already seen a source about Baba Yaga somewhere else first, no one asks for Baba Yaga to be deleted.
For me, probably for many English speakers, this article will be the first time they have ever heard of Baba Fingo. That's why it needs sources, while Baba Yaga merely would be better with sources.
That is a real problem, though. There are many articles on Simple for which the source is not listed. In fact, some months ago, we had a Big Weekend source drive in which we all went around adding sources to articles. I think I added fifteen to Red Riding Hood alone! Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources[change source]

Hi Darkfrog24. When you add sources to an article, you want to verify they match what you are talking about and if they do, when you add them to the article, you should change the access-date to the date you read it. I noticed on Baby Yaga you added sources, but left the access-date of 2017. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: Well of course they should. To the best of my knowledge, I always make sure the source matches the fact that I want it to support.
In the specific case of Baba Yaga, that's a typo. Today is June 4, 2021. The "June 4, 2017" is a typo. More concerning, have you seen a source I've added that looked like it didn't support the on-Wiki text? If so, I'll fix it immediately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't typically dive into sources, but I can. Which one are you talking about? I also edited the dates and changed 'acceesdate' to 'access-date'. Remember the format should always be DMY. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 16:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @PotsdamLamb: What are you referring to when you say dates should always be DMY? Dates should be in the format used by the article as a whole, which should never be DMY. DMY dates are problematic because they are often ambiguous. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Potsdamlamb, when you said "When you add sources to an article, you want to verify they match what you are talking about," it sounded like you'd seen a case in which I had somehow failed to do so. This surprised me because I'm usually pretty careful about that. It sounds like you haven't actually seen one, though, so we're good.
Auntof6, yes, I had thought there was more than one correct option for order of dates here on Simple. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6 That is the way the citation creator puts them in it is always DMY. They shouldn't be to ambiguous if it is done right such as 5 June 2021. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 16:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, right. I was thinking all-numeric dates, like 01-02-2021. If you spell out the month, it's not ambiguous. But in any case, they should match the article's format. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
When I started on Simple I just copied what I saw here, which was the unambiguous "month-as-word, day-as-number, four-digit-year." I think we can conclude that the system I recommended to Nilandil was one of several correct options. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh good god no! That is confusing even to me lol. I do know they need to fix that access-date issue in the citation fixer though. It still puts things in with the depreciated parameters. I don't know where to post that, probably the tech wiki where I get my weekly tech news from? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 16:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry[change source]

Sorry I was so angry about the request for deletion on cat racism— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.239.160 (talkcontribs) 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@94.44.239.160: I couldn't even tell you were mad. Apology accepted if it makes you feel better, but I don't think it's a big deal.
The information you put in cat racism looked true to me. Would you consider adding a section to Cat with this information in it? I could help you find sources.

Ok. (I keep forgetting what my ip adress is). What sandbox rule?

Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC) [comment moved by Darkfrog24] Please don't delete it. It was my first page on simple Wikipedia. You said to make it better but on the main page of simple Wikipedia it says you don't have to worry about making your articles good because other people will make it better. And do all pages have to be articles?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.239.160 (talkcontribs) 15:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

One, please put your comments at the bottom of the page and not the top.
About "don't worry about making the article good because someone else will fix it" should be more specific. What really happens is "Don't worry about making the article perfect because someone else might fix it if they feel like it." The article does have to be good enough to start.
One rule is this: A source proving that the article is true has to exist. Even if the source isn't in the article when it's first made, it has to exist in the world. If there's no source anywhere, then it shouldn't be an article here. For example, the person who started the article Iris (asteroid) didn't list any sources. But I found one and added it.
We're thinking about deleting Cat racism because it looks like there are no sources that say "cat racism is a real thing AND it's what the article says it is."
I think you could find a source saying "Black cats are the least likely to be adopted from shelters." I think you could find a source saying "People used to think black cats had to do with witches." But I don't think there is a source that says "And that is cat racism; that's the general term in the English language for this."
My first Wikipedia article was deleted too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I took the liberty of starting a Sandbox page (practice page) to show you what I mean. Remember, improving the article Cat is something you can do if you want to. You don't owe Simple your time or work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)