User talk:Macdonald-ross

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

Words[change source]

Every now & then we get editors changing words on the basis of their ideas on what is simple. Words also have to be accurate (we are an encyclopedia).

  • Big: certainly simple and popular with children, but a term almost never to be used about living things. Is a giraffe bigger than an elephant? Think about it. It is almost always better to use a more exact word, such as longer, heavier. Is a star big? Does that mean its apparent size or its intrinsic size? Ditto stars being bright.
  • Rich is an ambiguous word. A cake can be rich, and a person can be rich. However, only a person can be wealthy, so prefer that word. Neither word is on the extended list of simple words, incidentally, so use the more precise word.
  • Very: another childhood favourite. In spoken English it is an intensifier, but it has almost no function in prose. It may be the most frequent word copy editors cut out as redundant.
  • Die: we all die, but species become extinct.
Now here's the tricky bit. Technically, a species which is not extinct is extant. Extant is the opposite of extinct. However it is a very rare word, and we use the common word "living". So we talk about living species. It sounds natural, and is right for us.
  • Animal: that includes jellyfish and beetles. If you mean mammals, say so.
  • Rare: an essential word in ecology, and supported by definitions in the literature. Steaks can also be rare, but that would not be good to use on Simple.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![change source]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

User talk page protection[change source]

You can't indefinitely protect or semi-protect a user talk page against editing, even your own -- especially yours, in fact, because you're an admin. If it really needs protection, please choose a short amount of time. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle[change source]

hello @Macdonald-ross sorry to bother you i have a question about Twinkle, is it just me who can't use twinkle or everyone have the same problem? Face-smile.svg Thank you 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm the wrong person to ask, except that I do know the automated features are down every now & again. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
it's ok, it can be fixed though because it was the same as here on ckbwiki a local Administrator successfully fixed the problem. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Chess Champions[change source]

Hey Macdonald-ross, I noticed you protected List of World Chess Champions indefinitely after there were two vandal edits in two months. I don't think protection is necessary right now to stop vandalism on the page. Do you think it's reasonable to unprotect the page? --Ferien (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages on this topic have a long history of vandalism, chiefly by proponents of Adolf Anderssen. In fact there never has been a time when the chess pages, when unprotected, were not vandalised! The vandalism started at least ten years ago. It'll start up again when the vandals see the pages are unprotected. These lists are factual and depend on the sources. I'd be open to any reasoned, sourced proposals, but we never get them. We just get vandalism. Do whatever you think is right. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the page is being vandalised – mainly by a WMF-banned editor, by the looks of it – but I just don't think that that page in particular was being vandalised very much. We can always block the IPs that editor uses if the vandalism reoccurs, and keep it on our watchlists. And, if lots of vandalism reoccurs we can protect it again.
The reason I'm asking you about unprotection is because the protection policy page says semi-protection should only be used if it is the only option left, and I feel like just blocking could be necessary here. --Ferien (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I've unprotected it. We'll see... Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rite of Spring[change source]

Hey Mac, I saw that you added {{Pgood}} template there but didn't start the discussion at WP:PGA. Should we start the discussion so that others could notice the page?-BRP ever 10:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure I believe in it any more. It was originally written by someone whose interest lay in the music, whereas the crowd antagonism to its first showing was at least as much directed at the dancing (which is the section I wrote). So the page splits nicely along lines of the two editors who contributed most. It might need recasting before it could make Pgood. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship comment request[change source]

Hi Mac, I think you are one of the most active reviewers in PGA and PVGA, as well as spotting a ton of mistakes. So, I think you are the perfect reviewer for what I want - perfection. I saw your comments in the article's GA proposal, and I think I addressed all of them and more. I just moved the proposal to VGA, since it has met 7 out of 10 of the criteria in my opinion. Do you want to continue reviewing the article's very good article proposal? Thanks a lot in advance! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though I have limited time available, and am careful how I use it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

time[change source]

You may want to update your time on your user page now, as the clocks have gone back... --Ferien (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Reshevsky[change source]

I hadn't properly seen the source at the end of the paragraph and that it may have related to that first statement in particular. Cheers for reverting, I see the source was referring to the first statement too. Bobo. 20:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a websource by E.G. Winter, and various best games collections. Interestingly, FIDE had intended there to be six players in the 1948 match-tournament. The American Rueben Fine was the one who withdrew. That meant the match-tournament was overloaded on the Soviet side. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted[change source]

Hello Mr. Ross! Good Evening! I saw you reverted my edit. I edited it because "they" isn't a good pronoun to replace a topic, which isn't person. For topics other than person, we ought to use "these/those/it/that". Another thing, I replace "you" by third person pronouns because Wikipedia isn't a manual, where it's recommended for readers. Using pronouns like "you" isn't good. We are just giving information, not suggesting. What is your comment for my reason? Haoreima (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of my changes are made to reflect our purpose, which is to write simply in a way that young readers can understand. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]