This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will show your username and the date.
If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.
Thanks for your edits on Grenfell Tower fire, you are one of about 3 people who edited the article. I would be greatful if you could quickly have a look to see if what I wrtoe is both accurate, and easy to understand. --Eptalon (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Only: (tps) As someone who had simplify a enwp train station article Sembawang MRT station, I will like to say that IWI tagging of A3 isn't too off. The sentences are really complex and currently, there isn't any work. It looks quite like the enwp article, so could you consider an A3. I can help to simplify, but the station itself lacks notabilty currently also, but not so close to A4. Can you advice us what to do, thanks. Just to note there isn't proper attribution also. --Cohaf (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have time to look at this further today so you’re always welcome one to ask another admin to look at it. But I declined it because the user had been working on it over the course of 10-15 minutes and had just edited it 3 minutes prior to the QD tag. I think that my declining it to allow the user to continue to work on it was more than reasonable. Only (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Only:I understand your point but the user stop editing after that tag was slapped. I personally will wait for a little while longer, say 30 minutes or so. Thanks for your input and I think I'll QD it again. Regards, --Cohaf (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Guidelines aren’t to die by. There were going to be more articles to add to it, obviously and that’s what I meant. Your intentions are good and I respect that. IWI (chat) 22:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
March 2019
Hi, I am Rectify 54. Just to let them know that Wikipedia has more articles per website. Please, check and remind us. Thank you. Rectify 54 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IWI. I was looking at your changes to September 11 attacks. Please be sure to use simple language and simple sentence structure in your changes. You added or created sentences that could be divided. Also, if you add a piece of information, include a reference. If it's something that you personally know (such as the second WTC impact being broadcast live), that's what Wikipedia calls original research and it's not allowed.
It would be great if you can help make the content even more simple. I will add something like "simplified from the English Wikipedia" next time I copy something from the English Wikipedia. A planetree leaf (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A3
Just wanted to let you know as you may not have realized. Just being the same as what is on en.wiki does not meet A3. If the text that was brought over was already simple it is completely legitimate. They do still need to say they copied it from there. And if I were you I would just remind them of that in the future. I have attributed the ones you just put up for speedy as they were almost all simple enough. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely get where you're getting at with these edits - it might be problematic on the other hand as there is a user under that name already. Do you have plans to usurp it? Hiàn (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted them since they're non-existent users and there is someone else there who could, in theory, utilize that page. If you usurp it, that'll be fine to make the redirect as a doppelganger. Only (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Only: That user has never made an edit and it is abandoned. I may be being stupid but how do I usurp. I certainly do not want to change the name of this account. IWI (chat) 19:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’d have to make a dummy account that the stewards would move to the new username. I don’t know if they’d allow that for the purposes of a doppelgänger though. Only (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Ketones. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. As you know, though, we have a three-entry rule. Please wait until there are already three articles before creating a category.
Besides that, I changed a lot of articles that you overcategorized. Please don't categorize things in more than one place in a branch of the category tree. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will pay closer attention to the tree in the future, which I oversighted. What happened was I made the Category with the intention of immediateley creating ketone articles, but then became preoccupied. In future, I will create the category when there are three to add. Thanks for your help, Auntof6. Your input both here and the project overall is greatly appreciated, sometimes I wonder how this wiki would get on without you. IWI (chat) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is not possible index user page?
Hi. I found the option by looking in the visual editor. What is the reason for not being able to index the user page?
Thank you.
(talk page stalker) @Bgmaster: The purpose of indexing a page is to have its contents show up in web searches. None of the things allowed on user pages need to show up in web searches. If you want the personal information on your user page to show up in web searches, that indicates that you are using Wikipedia as a web host, which is not allowed. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop striking out other users' comments, even if the user is a sockpuppet. If you think it's necessary, you can bring things to the closing admin's attention by adding a comment after the text you think is a problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It remains unclear until now, but there is also the possibility the attack was caused by a broken relationship instead of being a terrorist attack. I have been following it this afternoon on Dutch sites. Several witnesses claim he went especially for a woman, and deliberately tried to shoot the people trying to help her after that. But those witnesses all agree on one thing: they heard someone calling "Allahoe Akhbar". We just have to wait and see. Maasje (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even Dutch authorities are not very sure about his motivation behind the crime at this moment. But the guy they are looking for certainly is no saint. Since 2012 he has been accused of rape, violence, theft, burglary and firing a weapon. "100 procent zekerheid hebben we nog niet. Het zou ook kunnen dat het in relationele sfeer is." translated: "We don't have 100% certainty. It could also be relational" and "Het is niet uitgesloten dat er meer verdachten zijn." translated "We cannot rule out more suspects" as I read a few minutes ago here (the official Dutch public broadcast internet channel). Maasje (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maasje: Well, I guessed he was no saint; he killed 3 people. I wouldn’t be against you correcting it, as long as you add those sources. IWI (chat) 16:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I have time and more hard-needed facts I'll try to look into it tomorrow. By the way, additional info (but I don't know how reliable) I found here. Even more fun! Seems that Dutch police locked him up a few years ago for "having relationships with IS" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant) and a local businessman over there stated he fought in Chechnya. I'll just have to wait for facts. Maasje (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Raciology
The word "raciology" is in dictionaries, but its etymology, provenance and historic importance are not discussed in Wikipedia. The word was popularized by a Colonial School formed in Nazi Germany, under the belief that the scientific study of "race" was a necessary component of colonization on non-white countries by Nazi Germany.
I would like to post the same definition of raciology that is found in Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam's Dictionary instead of the summary treatment now given to the word, which does not even include the dictionary definition.
I can post this information within the existing section on scientific racism, but I would like assurance that my well researched study of the German's efforts to study "raciology" will not be removed.
(talk page stalker) @Dreamlover8: If you are actively working on an article, you can put a template on it to let people know that. One such template is {{under construction}}. This is not a guarantee that the article won't be deleted, but it might prevent that for a while. If you will be working on the article for more than a day or two, consider creating a sandbox page in your userspace, where you can work on it longer.--Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Vermont, "Snapple is a flavored beverage in the United States" is not an encyclopedia article. It had very little meaning. IWI (chat) 23:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Short != no meaning. It was a full sentence which accurately described the subject. Expanding an article is always optimal over deleting it. Vermont (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That vs Which
Spotted this. Interesting, albeit not necessary. In British English there is a tendency to use that and which interchangeably in that type of clause. I thought it may be interesting for you to know, therefore, that it is not necessarily a mistake. --Yottie=talk=01:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie: Hi there. In this case, "which" can only come after a comma. If a comma isn’t there it should say that. It is a mistake, even if colloquially it is often mistaken. IWI (chat) 13:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie:There are brackets used there, which changes the syntax. The reason why that sentence was wrong is actually quite complex and is explained well here. IWI (chat) 13:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the wrong page. Basically, that is wrong. If a comma wouldn’t make sense, then "that" should be used, not "which". IWI (chat) 13:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New templates
Hi, IWI. I noticed that you created Template:Bartable without its doc page. Please be sure to bring over doc pages when you bring templates from enwiki. If you'd like an admin to import a doc page for you (or even to import the main template itself), just leave a note in the admins' notice board. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2020
2020
Eponymous categorization
While you are correct that the article was already categorized in that category. It is not uncommon for us to categorize both an article and the category named after it to both be in the same categories. Whether or not this is one of those situations I suppose it could be debated and I don't care enough to do so. But I just wanted to let you know that there are often times where both should be categorized so it isn't always appropriate to remove. -Djsasso (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience. Message added 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Please don't bring over text from En wiki and leave it unchanged. However short or long, the text needs to be carefully simplified according to our guidelines. Thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I'm not the type of person who likes to have/see comments/questions unanswered, if you don't want me to respond to any other old comments in the future, please let me know. --ThegooduserLet's Talk! :)🍁01:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: One day there will be 100 year old comments lol. 2101 the first article will be 100. Exciting stuff, sad that I won't be able to see it. IWI (chat) 02:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Yea I will probably won't see it too... lol... but someone will see these comments after 100 years, who knows? I wonder how many articles Simple English Wikipedia will have then --ThegooduserLet's Talk! :)🍁02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Can you take another look at Run (cricket), please? - I don't play cricket, and where I live, almost no people do. Ideally, we also get an image to illustrate the concept. Thanks...--Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: You got it mostly right, just a few key points were missed that I updated. I took a video used on the enwiki article as it is good. IWI (chat) 17:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Languages
Thanks! Not literally. In fact, some of them are the same languages (Bosnian, Croat, Serbian) while others are very similar to each other (Czech and Slovak). Personally, level 1 and 2 I'd describe as "I understand" rather than "I speak". :) Niegodzisie (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Niegodzisie: That's cool man. I know slavic languages are very similar so it makes sense. I've been learning Russian myself and I have realised that. How have you learned so many? IWI (chat) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the satellite imagery of Great Britain; it certainly makes the article more appealing. The previous image had the merit of showing quite clearly what the island is and is not. I can't bring myself to urge its reinstatement, but I wonder whether it might be possible to crop the image at the left, to include less of Ireland and, as it happens, The Hebrides? --GrounderUK (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitspinner: please stop this. You are going to get yourself blocked. You know very well what I find obscene or inappropriate about it. It is vandalism; you've put it there only to shock people. IWI (chat) 16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your great work here! Through your edits that keep on improving articles here at Simple Wiki, you have become a very valuable community member. Keep up the good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove unblock requests, even those that are clearly in bad faith. Doing this can prevent admins from seeing bad behavior. It can also be seen as interfering with communication with admins, leading to a justifiable complaint from the user in question. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you were referring to. Apologies; I didn't see the unblock template. I thought it was simple vandalism. Only was monitoring their talk page as he removed tp access, so I'm sure he saw it anyway. I'll be more careful in future. Thanks, IWI (chat) 16:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Castilian languages
I think you might reconsider this page. We already have information on Spanish language, and Castilian language already redirects to Spanish language. This page could also redirect to Spanish language IMO.
The historical part of Spanish language could be expanded, perhaps with a section on former and other languages used in Spain (we do have Occitan). The general principle is that a user ought not to have to search several pages for closely related material. I don't feel super-strongly about this, and it may be something which could be debated further. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: Well there are more than one Castilian language. They are technically a language family, with Spanish being the major member. I do see what you mean with users not having to search through many pages. The distinction is between Castilian language (which is Spanish and redirects there) and the Castilian languages (a family of closely related languages). IWI (chat) 14:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves us with two pages whose titles differ by only a terminal 's', and on very closely related topics. That is not good. Let's move 'Castilian languages' to 'Castilian language family'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern and will to make wikipedia better place,
as we were still under process of editing the page (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maziar_Rajabi) after publish the page we have noticed the Deletion Tag on the page due to notability and reference issue. We highly appreciate u to check again the page and if you think is ok please remove the delete tag on the page to improve it in wiki manner.
@Letsdoitrightnow: Firstly, please remember to sign comments with ~~~~ at the end. You said "we", does this mean there are many people using your account? This isn't allowed. Only one person is allowed to use one account. On Wikipedia, we have a guideline about notability. This person that the article is about is not notable. They haven't done anything important enough to be on wikipedia. IWI (chat) 01:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know. Message added 21:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ (talk page stalker) Thanks for helping change those headings. If you'd like search expressions that can help you find various permutations of them, you can find them on my user page where it says "sample search strings".
I also noticed that you added a blank line before the stub template on this page. That's good, but be aware that it's customary to have two blank lines before a stub template so that there's good visual separation between the stub information and the preceding text. That's less important if the stub information is right after a navbox or something similar --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I ask for a reconsider. This is long-term abuse on the page; the user has been reverting back for a while. I accept that I violated the three-revert rule. I apologise for this. IWI (chat) 11:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I think it would make sense for you to follow some of your own advice: "you need to discuss this on the talk page. You can't just keep reverting." If there has been such a significant long-term abuse at that page (which I don't see significant evidence of in the history; I see one edit by this IP in April), there are many ways to address that without engaging in an edit war. -- Only (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I accept the block. I won't disrupt the project and would like to return to improving and protecting it as soon as possible. If that is in 24 hours time, so be it. IWI (chat) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Only: Thank you for the response. I also withdraw my patroller request, given the circumstances. Please close this for me. Also remove rollback from my account. I apologise for the violation. IWI (chat) 12:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it was an LTA and assumed wrong, which is the reason I violated the 3RR. I made a mistake and I accept the consequences. IWI (chat) 12:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw and Only: I believe this block is mistaken and IWI did not "assume wrong". I'm not familiar with 81.10.217.91, but they've been engaged in enough cross-wiki disruption to get blocked on frwiki, dewiki, and enwiki, at least. Given that, I think most users would have reasonably assumed "LTA" also. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a very minor point: I am female and I would prefer that you didn’t presume to know my gender when you refer to me in the third person. You may not be aware that this is a microaggression and that it affects me personally, which is why I’m politely letting you know. Thanks Greeseefeesees aka Legerrich (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, quick question. What's the right order elements in a page? Related pages and then Other Sites? Or the other way around? Many thanks! — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IWI! Just thought you may be interested, following your edit to Tahini. Arabic could be used in that context. One of the OED definitions for Arabic is "Arab or Arabian in origin, character, or design". Basically synonyms! --Yottie=talk=18:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie: This is true, but the usual word is "Arabian" with "Arabic" usually meaning the language. I think we should stick to the most common word. IWI (chat) 18:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie: It certainly is my opinion. In my experience, "Arabian" is usually used to refer to things or people from Arabia, mainly because "Arabic" is too associated with the language (which is also spoken outside Arabia). I could be wrong and you're welcome to start a discussion on the matter :). Thanks, IWI (chat) 18:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to start a discussion. As I said, they mean the same thing so I am happy with either. Semantically, they are exact synonyms. Happy editing! --Yottie=talk=18:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking part in the Big Reference Weekend 2020. As a team, we helped make 177 pages better! Every change helps, big or small. Well done! Yottie=talk=09:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi "ImprovedWikiImprovment" i have edited New and Renewable Energy Authority, it is now commercial organization its governmental. could you please explain how it is promotional? It is the has the responsibility of all Renewable Energy projects in egypt?--Hamid (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw you just created a disambiguation page for Brum. Just consulted Category:Disambiguation pages on EN as I want to learn how to do it. Along with creating or picking categories and merging suggestions, I'm not very good with this, so I would appreciate your guidance. So if I were to add {{Disambiguation}} on top of an article I want to create a disambiguation, it will then create that category? Or do I need to set that up as well? Many thanks. — Infogapp1 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infogapp1: I think we like to keep it simple here with as few categories as possible. This is a question better suited for Auntof6. In terms of the disambig pages themselves, it is usually sufficient to copy them from enwiki with attribution and sometimes a little simplification. IWI (chat) 22:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, that's why I'm not creating any categories as (1) I'm not sure how to even create them in the first place (2) I'd rather stick to impving existing articles for now. I only asked because I saw you added a disambig for Brum and I wanted to know how to do it (if it's easy to do, haha). I'll certainly take a look at EN formats where needed. Thanks — Infogapp1 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Infogapp1: I'm not sure whether you are asking about disambiguation or categories. They don't usually mix. Disambiguation pages are not categorized except for the categories added by the disambiguation templates. I'd be glad to help you with creating either disambiguation pages or categories if you can be more specific about what you'd like help with. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Oh no, I was only mentioning I'm not very good with categories and merging. So, if disambiguation is just as complicated, I'd probably stay away from doing any of them for now. Appreciate the offer and I'll certainly reach out in case I need to do it down the line. Thanks to you both. — Infogapp1 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infogapp1: Disambiguation is not complicated. The hardest part is deciding whether the disambiguation page should be at the base name, or if one of the listed items should be at the base name. We can look to enwiki for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i recreated an article for Rahul Kumar Pandey, (that you marked for deletion) because now it follows each and every Wikipedia policies. The person have sufficient web articles on google. Non-advertising, notable and authentic references provided. Article created for a person who is doing a lot of social welfare activities for the people of Patna, Bihar, India. Thank you!
Please take a look! GuidePro (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yes i got a warning yesterday to not create an article again due to advertising.
But this article doesn’t carry any kind of promotion to individual, or a brand.
And according to Wikipedia policy,
‘A person can be notable if he or she has been written about in many published secondary sources. These must be reliable, independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If there is not a lot of coverage in any one source, then several independent sources may be combined to show notability.’
And you can search about Rahul Kumar Pandey on every search engine, saying the person is not notable for Wikipedia is not fair now.
Request you to take a proper look on article and weblinks.
Thank you! GuidePro (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your great example
The Barnstar of National Merit
From helping create and improving highly informative articles on events, roads, to helping organise the Big World Heritage Weekend. Thank you for helping preserve the national treasures, and for being one yourself in the process. Many thanks! - Infogapp1 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropical Storm Angela: Sure. I think describing something that has failed as a "flop" is not something people new to English would understand. The word "flop" has other meanings. Do you disagree? :) regards, IWI (chat) 15:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Prahlad balaji: Of course. On a new article, you will see a link in the left sidebar that says "add links". Click this and type in the wiki you want to link to in the top box, and the page you want to link to in the bottom box. For the English Wikipedia, type "enwiki" in the top box and the name of the English Wikipedia article in the bottom box. Hope this helps. IWI (chat) 22:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Thegooduser: In the UK and some other places, people use the term sit instead of take when talking about exams. As I think about it, it seems to make more sense anyway. Those phrasal verbs will get you every time! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gomdoli4696: To use Twinkle, you must first be autoconfirmed. This should happen within the next two days. When you are autoconfirmed, you can add Twinkle by clicking "My settings" at the top, then going to the "gadgets" tab. There you should be able to turn Twinkle on. Hope this helps :) IWI (chat) 01:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I declined your QD request on the talk page for the user with the bad user name. I don't believe it fits the requirement for A3, because the page content was not vandalism. However, if you want to take it to RfD, I'd have no problem with that. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking part in the Big World Heritage Weekend 2020! Collectively, we made 376 changes and created 56 new articles about World Heritage Sites! Whether big or small, every change you made helps make the Simple English Wikipedia a better source of information. Well done. Yottie=talk=12:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should have discussed it first and then later decided according to the majority. But in this case only two things happened - the article I made was redirected to another article and the entire text of that article was removed. This is like removing the article, but you did it without discussion in it. Sandesh9822 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandesh9822: No. A user reverted your change, and you reverted back. This is edit warring. It is you who should have discussed it with the editor who reverted you, as opposed to reverting back. IWI (chat) 09:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Naleksuh redirected the article to another article without assigning any reason, so I reverted that edit. Perhaps the user did not understand the difference in both the articles. But this user should have had discuss before doing this. After that you reverted my edit!!! Why do you think the wrong editing by @Naleksuh: was appropriate? A user did a mistake and you support it.
It seems to me that the decision to remove any article should not be taken by a member alone. Between the editing war of new and old users, the edits of the old users should not be considered correct and the edits of new users should not be wrong. We must take the right decision.
I put my opinion, and I will not come here again. Both of you do as you wish.
@Sandesh9822: You are not understanding how Wikipedia works. You don’t seem to understand the idea that you shouldn’t revert back if you have been reverted. You should not take offence because of this, but rather keep it in mind next time someone reverts you. If you do this many times you may be blocked from editing. IWI (chat) 11:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Jumping in as I was pinged. @Sandesh9822:, I agree with IWI's statement above about not engaging in what may be considered edit warring. If you have a question about an editor's edit (in this case Naleksuh), please try to leave a message on their talk page, as opposed to reverting their edits, as having discussions usually may help in resolving the issue. --Infogapp1 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(change conflict) It seems that Naleksuh's attempt to redirect the article was the original controversial edit in question, before it was subsequently reverted. If we were to refer to the guidelines in the WP:BRD cycle, then the originating editor(s) should be the one initiating the discussion. The status quo appears to be the one established on 1 Aug. ChenzwTalk12:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: Okay fair. Perhaps this is an error on my part in that case. The user had already tried to add this to a different article and was reverted. I think the user should have took this to mean that they need to discuss the addition of this table, rather than try to add it elsewhere. IWI (chat) 12:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandesh9822: Wait until 24hrs after your message, whenever that was. If Naleksuh still hasn't replied (who I ask does engage in a discussion with you), you may restore it, considering him redirecting the article was in fact the bold move anyway. Right now it is the morning where he lives and he may still be sleeping. --IWI (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naleksuh: "List of Buddhist conversions in India" article contains the mass conversions, while "List of converts to Buddhism" article contains only notable individuals. One of these two articles is for Indians and the other is for people from all over the world. Both have different content. Sandesh9822 (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second point of "Indians vs . All over world" is resolved, because I didn't just redirect to the article, I redirected to the section on India. For the first part, yes, it does only contain notable individuals. Now that I understand what the purpose of your table is, I think we are getting somewhere. However, I still believe that the current content is more in the scope of Wikipedia. Naleksuh (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ygm
Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience. You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Don't be sorry that you had to oppose, it was my error not knowing policy, you or anyone should not have to feel sorry for opposing me, it's merely just voting, and it doesn't damage my relationship with you or any or the other editors, to me adminship is no big deal, I just wanted to help out --ThegooduserLet's Talk! :)🍁02:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think you could take a look at this when you have time? I’d appreciate your input on it, as I think it needs a little more simplifying. If you can’t that’s fine, I’ll just have Yottie do it.
Also, what did you do to your sig, and why? It’s so... boring now.
I understand that procedure generally does not permit commenting on already-closed RfDs, but just a revert saying not to edit archived RfDs in the edit summary is not as useful as engaging the editor in resolving their concern, and pointing them to the correct destinations. Ultimately, editors may not be as familiar with processes on this wiki, and efforts should be taken to actually talk to them. ChenzwTalk05:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IWI I came here so I could ask you to delete the article MyUsernamesThis or at least get someone do it. The reason is that "When I started the article, I knew nothing about making on wiki articles. But I wanted to find information. But then you are someone else got on to me and I didn't have time. So I couldn't say anything."
Hello. I know you mean no harm, but your edit summary 'Fixed Obvious error' can be viewed as attacking a user, because of the tone of the edit summary. I know you aren't attacking, but it can be viewed as an attack for some people. I just wanted to let you know about this. :)--ThegooduserLet's Talk! :)🍁01:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: Not an attack at all. I was just using it as a reason to edit the user's heading, as normally this would not be done, but since the error seemed obvious, I felt I could edit it and fix the link. I was saying that it was obviously an error, and not intentional. Hope this clarifies for both you and Hamuyi. :) --IWI (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamuyi: What I meant was "fixing something that is clearly a mistake", not anything else. I hope you can understand. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :) --IWI (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir i am new here, you tagged my very first article about Bollywood actor, cinematographer, I have cited and add more reference after your deletion tag,
Please take a look.
@Cheeku05: Like I said, I don't think it is notable. Other editors will come to an agreement on whether to keep or delete the article over the next week. You can try to find reliable, independent sources that talk about the subject a lot to show that the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. --IWI (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disturbing you but I'm waiting yours for 10 hrs, can you please help to know me when the deletion tag will be remove, I'm not too much knowledge of wiki.
By the way I have mentioned my confession to deletion discussion page.
@Cheeku05: There will be a discussion about this article. It will last for a week. After then, either the article will be deleted, or the tag will be removed. You will have to wait the seven days. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please check this page
You recently placed a deletion tag on my recent article. Can you please remove them so I will update them. She is notable . Please sir article name Diana Eneje. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovegod112 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovegod112: Nothing tells me that she is notable, and because of this I will not remove the tag. May I ask your connection to this person? Do you know Diana Eneje, or are you her? --IWI (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is a celebrity sir, Google search her your self Sir . I will edit the articles now with why she is notable sir. Search the name (DUMEBI by Rema) Song own by one of the biggest Nigerian artist with over 22 millions view on YouTube And you will see why she is notable Ilovegod112 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. How are you connected to Diana Eneje? Views have nothing to do with our notability guidelines. Also, please stop adding the {{wait}} template here; this is only meant to be used on articles tagged for quick deletion, not on talk pages. --IWI (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not connected to her anyway and am sorry for the wait tag. After the video by Rema she became famous , she won 2 awards. She is famous . I just decided to create a page for her since she doesn’t have one. Ilovegod112 (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not going to remove the tag until there is a claim of notability on the page. There are plenty of notable people you can create articles about. --IWI (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarih: Hello. I do not think there are any tracking categories or special pages that could help you find articles without images. I will ping Auntof6 here who is much more experienced than me and may be able to give you some guidance here. My advice would be to hit the "show any page" button on the left until you find an article without an image. I assume you are here from commons? --IWI (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ImprovedWikiImprovment, I want to ask you for advice on dealing with new, poorly written articles, because you've been here for a long time, and I think you do that a lot. Over the last couple months, I have often patrolled recent changes for vandalism, and often encounter new articles. Some of them I tag for QD, and others I try to fix so they look a little more like a stub. But I almost never leave a message for the person who wrote the article, because I don't know what to say (besides telling them that their article will be deleted). Do you have any suggestions? I recently noticed this article: Philippine Space Agency. It is written badly, but it seems to have some useful information. Do I have to fix it myself? If articles like that are just left here, they look like clutter. Thank you. Naddruf (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf: Certainly. There are a few key things I look for first:
Checking it isn't a direct enwiki copy, or copyright violation of another website.
Simplifying the language used.
Changing "see also" to "related pages".
Changing "external links" to "other websites".
Ensuring the article has the correct categories. You can use articles about similar subjects (or the equivalent enwiki article) as a guide.
Tagging articles as stubs, if needed.
Cleaning up articles to fit the manual of style. This includes having bold at the start, adding any links and ensuring paragraphs are separated properly.
Sometimes I will cite uncited claims using references from enwiki, or elsewhere. Also, I may add an appropriate image.
I also link the article to the wikidata item using the "add links" button on the sidebar.
If an article is bad and fits a QD criteria, it is up to you whether you want to clean it up or tag it. If an article is bad enough to be deleted, you should leave a warning to the user such as {{subst:uw-create1}}. People who make good articles that needed cleaning up can be left a welcome message to help them learn how to write articles.
So about sending a message to the writer, the answer is you don't usually do that? Also, the things I'm used to doing so far are adding categories, adding the stub tag, adding links, and bolding the necessary parts. Naddruf (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf: If they have made a QD worthy article, warn them with {{subst:uw-create1}}. If they made an article that needed cleaning up, use a welcome template. Generally it is good to leave a message. --IWI (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more to that Rfd. I am sure it won't change your comment but just wanted to let you know. Created that Rfd before I realized the extent of the problem. -Djsasso (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me and my settings, or Twinkle no longer automatically posts a QD notification to the creator's talk page when their article is nominated for QD? --Infogapp1 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May I know your rationale for undoing the addition of an internal wikilink of a politician's article, which has multiple inline citations confirming his office position? ChenzwTalk12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: Yes, of course. The user is WMF globally banned and may not edit any Wikimedia project. Restoring it later is better than letting him think he is welcome to change this Wikipedia by letting his edit stay, per DENY. --IWI (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out that the undo kicked off a revert war involving 4 more rounds of back-and-forth undos between two additional editors, and eventually led to an actual abusive diff. In future it might be worth considering requesting a revdel of the disruptive edit summary instead. I should also mention that at the time you decided to revert, you were the first editor in the chain and could not possibly claim knowledge of future reverts. ChenzwTalk12:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit summary alone was enough to tell me who it was, as there is an attack on Antandrus. I intentionally left the reverting for a sysop to do it after the proxy was blocked thereafter to minimise any kind of war. --IWI (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For exceptional, conspicuous, and meritorious service to the Wikipedia community, I am proud to present this award to ImprovedWikiImprovment in honor of their accomplishments which reflect great credit upon themselves and their fellow Wikipedians. Your dependability and steadfast devotion to this project are noticed and appreciated. Thank you for all the work you put in here. Operator873talkconnect00:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.
Hi buddy!
Thanks for warm welcome.
Will definitely work on developing articles in simple english wiki.
i have few doubts on here.
1) If i write an article from english wiki to simple english how to notify you before publishing it ? i hope if i get trained with your assistance will help me more.
2) In simple eng wiki, articles from English wiki or other languages are only allowed or i can write new articles ?
@Jayreborn: Hello and welcome! Yes you can create articles from the English Wikipedia. But when doing this, there are two things you must make sure you do:
@Thegooduser: It verifies that tempura is based on (or originates from) a Portuguese recipe called "peixinhos da horta". I'm not sure whether this quite means "tempura is Portuguese"; I still think the dish is very much a Japanese one. --IWI (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
en:Peixinhos da horta is actually its own dish. I think tempura is a Japanese dish based on the Portuguese dish. Tempura developed in Japan, not Portugal, so I would say that Tempura did not develop in Portugal but Japan. --IWI (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I've been calling out and opposing this red-brown convergence for some time. I don't want Wikipedia to assume a political stance: I believe if it does, then a certain segment of Wikipedia users will surely be alienated. And it wouldn't surprised me if some within Wikipedia turns out to be part of it all along. -- 2001:D08:D8:5B58:C8D7:CA5:984B:D57C (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to catch everything that needs to be changed in an article when someone dies, but make sure you change the living people category to a year-of-death category. I've made the change for this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience. Message added 23:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
When you have this kind of request, it's simpler to just ask at the admins' noticeboard for the desired move to be done. The admins can delete the target page as part of the move, saving a step.--Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Okay, will do in the future. Always thought it was best to avoid clogging up the noticeboard, as moves requiring admins happen a lot. --IWI (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuccessful RfA...
Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment,
I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful; you were 4 support votes (or 8%) short of what our guideline stipulates. Please continue the good work you do, and don't feel bad. Perhaps try again some other time? --Eptalon (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for the message Eptalon. I am honoured to have been nominated in the first place as well as all the support I received from the community. I’d like to thank the opposers for their feedback and I will continue the work that I have been doing and will work on the points highlighted to me. Regards, --IWI (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ImprovedWikiImprovment, I would like to treat you to this (virtual) Ice Cream, for being an awesome Wikipedian, and for being Bold for going to an RFA, you deserve this! Don't ever give up and you will get the mop soon, you are awesome! :) --ThegooduserLet's Talk! :)🍁21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the ice cream Thegooduser, I shall enjoy it :). Thank you for your kind words also, both here and in the RFA. Perhaps I will try again in the future... Kind regards, --IWI (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadden
To see your RFA ended this way. I thank you for your courage to run and I wish you all the best in future if you wish to run again. Happy Editing. Sidenote, viwiki is really one of the worst place to ask for deletions, I had several of my taggings reverted. It's not a small wiki vs large wiki issue, they just enjoy letting Vietnamese subjects to have pages there. I did several crosswiki cleanups of paid editors / globally locked ones, and I managed to get all the articles deleted from major wikis like de/ja/it/pt/es etc and the only one which refuse is vi. However, each wikis have it's own governance and notablity standards, so slowly I learned to ignore them. Anyway, thanks for volunteering :). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage: Thank you for your support. Yes I learnt this the hard way it seems, however I do not think starting a deletion discussion for an article you think isn’t notable is a bad thing to do, nor would I describe that as "disturbing". The governing body of any project is the community, and they have decided new editors cannot start deletion discussions. That is fair enough – it is for this reason I should not have started it. Also, if they have a different idea of notability that is fine too. I will continue to be passionate (but not aggressive) in deleting spam articles here, though. If that would cost me the admin tools, so be it (although that does not seem fair). As for the other points, they were very much constructive and fair points of criticism. As Eptalon said to me, RfAs are very much about "dirty laundry". You too had your concerns that I can learn from in your support vote. But I am happy and I will continue to contribute here as normal. Perhaps I will try again in the future :). Regards, --IWI (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
Sorry to have missed your RfA candidacy. I would have supported you 100%. Also, thought I let you know how much I appreciate you being polite in all our interactions. Keep up the great work, and hope to support you in the future. --Infogapp1 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infogapp1: Thank's Infogapp. I try to be kind most of the time to all people I interact with. I do tend to agree with the consensus of the RFA that I'm probably not ready yet. Thanks for your kind words :) --IWI (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that policy specifically states that "Having a small amount of content is not a reason to delete if it has useful information." for QD A1. Quick deletion should not be used as an alternative method of "remediating" encyclopedia articles of a sub-par quality. ChenzwTalk09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: I didn't think it had much meaning when I tagged it, but it appeared to be a dictionary definition now that I look at it again (i.e. not A1). Sorry about that, thanks for letting me know :). --IWI (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you make helpful changes I will not bother you. However, if you continue to make bad changes then I will not leave you alone as I want you to stop, and you will eventually be blocked from changing Wikipedia if you continue. You're welcome to make good changes, so please do that. --IWI (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: Depends on how you compare it. Some words are similar to English in some way and the alphabet is fairly easy too. It is certainly easier than Japanese but harder than Spanish, French, German etc. You might want to ask Vermont too who speaks it much better than me. --IWI (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the hardest parts have been knowing when to write ы or и, and also the case system. It's definitely something someone can do with a bit of time, there's tons of helpful resources online. Vermont (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never found Duolingo to be particularly helpful in teaching anything really. The best way to learn is to talk with natives, although that can be difficult. I make my own flashcards of words and phrases that I want to learn, rather than useless stuff like "this is a dog" or whatever. --IWI (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
