User talk:Macdonald-ross

From 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: not a good word because it is ambiguous. A cake can be just as rich as a person. 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 populations become extinct.
  • 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!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Erina[change source]

what kind of source you need ? I am one of erina speaker. And perhap you understood erina is khowar??? no Arniya is second name name of khowar source not erina and if you dont want Erina article simply delete no need to redirect with other language. Kratie222 (talk)

Royalty (album)[change source]

Re this edit: I think notability of this album is now shown by the high rankings on some of the mudic charts. --~~

Questions about cell wall[change source]

Thank you for you change my article, i have some questions about my article, can i add some information that you deleted article information at begining. Why ?

Modern Warfare - Advertisment[change source]

It wasn't advertisement. I was just informing people on MWR. I don't even work for Activision

My edits reverted without explanation.[change source]

Hello Mr Macdonald-ross, Recently I made an edit on the page Moheen Reeyad, I made a case to request for deletion but my edits are reverting without give a reason. as you are one of administrator i request you to look at this. the case i made: here let me know if i made a mistake by giving my opinion for requesting this page.

You were quite right to put it up for QD, and I have given reasons in my response to the Request for deletion. In my view it can be QD'd, but now I prefer that others read my reason. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to Jew[change source]

Hi. Could I ask you to review your edits and reverts on this article, where you are going back to a version by Eurodyne please? When you commit these reverts using "Undo", you are putting back a {{fact}} tag into a section of the article where there is a hidden message for editors in the wikitext, asking people not to put fact tags in that area. Someone has pointed out that this is essentially Holocaust denial, because by putting tags there, it's in essence, asking for proof that the Holocaust happened. I would appreciate your cooperation in this matter. DaneGeld (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Db-author[change source]

Are you sure that your deletion of this page was correct? Please forgive me (and let me know) if I'm incorrect, but I believe that this is a widely used QD template. Let me know when you can. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Was explained to Oshwah on AN that he was mixing up templates between en and simple so no need to worry about this. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Living things (song) [change source]

Hi MacDonald,

I noticed that you deleted the above article per Q4 without even a notification on my talk page as a courtesy. That being said, I don't see how a stub with two reliable secondary sources meet the criteria for speedy deletion. More importantly, I am in the process of expanding the page and should not have been speedily deleted. This is a single from a notable artist that has generated a lot of controversies in Nigeria. You could send it to AfD but certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. See pulse newspaper , Nigerian bulleting, this newspaper , The nation newspaper ,this review to mention few. I am struggling to see how the page possibly met the criteria for quick deletion. The page clearly meet the general notability guideline as it has received coverages from multiple independent reliable sources. Not a candidate for quick deletion. Wikicology (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wikicology: Hello, Wikicology. Allow me to mention a couple of things.
  • The quick deletion (QD) process here may be different from the speedy deletion process you may have seen on other Wikimedia projects. One of the QD criteria here allows for quick deletion of certain types of pages that don't show notability. I looked at the content of the deleted page, and I didn't see any statement of notability. Yes, it had sources, but the sources didn't support a statement of notability.
  • If you are working on a page, you can tag it with a template such as {{under construction}} to let people know it isn't finished yet. It's not a guarantee that it won't get deleted, and that tag can't stay very long, but we'll usually leave such articles alone for a time. You also have the option of developing an article in your userspace.
If you need it, we have a specific place for requesting that deleted pages be restored. It's at WP:Deletion review. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Auntof6, the controversies that resulted from the subject makes it important and that was stated on the deleted article. My understanding is that award is not the only way to determine a subject notability. Subject of national concern that has received significant coverages in multiple reliable sources is not only notable but realistically useful for educational purposes. A4 applies to "article about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. The controversies resulted from the subject is why it is important. Wikicology (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology: Here is the entire text from the deleted article:
Living things is a song written and recorded by the Nigerian singer 9ce It was produced by Young John as a single from the studio album ID Cabasa. The song was criticised for promoting internet fraud.
Saying that the song was criticized does not make it notable: many songs are criticized, for many different reasons. The article didn't say anything about controversy. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have to mention controversy in the article. Well, it doesn't worth it. Let's focus on something more productive. When I'm ready to re-write, I'll do. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology: It's true that you don't have to mention controversy. You do have to mention something that makes the song notable/important, though. Since you said "The controversies resulted from the subject is why it is important," I thought that's what you'd want to mention. It could be something else instead, but my point was that nothing like that was mentioned in the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree it was not mentioned. I was in the process of expanding the article when it was deleted by Mac. I should have been notified of the deletion. It's inappropriate to delete a page without notifying the page creator especially if such page is not an attack page or Blatant copyvio. Wikicology (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I have recreated the page with a claim of significance. Please, take it to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion if you disagree for community input. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[change source]

Hi, Macdonald-ross. Thanks for blocking User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 as not here to build an encyclopedia. However, Dispite blocked, Dylan Cerbone 2018 is still active as is actually the same person of Dylan Cerbone 2018 because of many evidence, including editing this page. As blocking pocicy, is should be blocking for a long time as the sockpuppet of Dylan Cerbone 2018. In English Wikipedia, has already blocked for a year.

Best regards, Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

no reply? Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That user account is blocked indefinitely. If you want to have IP ranges blocked you need to message someone like user:Chenzw whose bot is set up to do that efficiently. Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of my article on Halina Rubinzstein-Dunlop[change source]

You removed my article on the above scientist without advising me. Given that this article was prepared for International Women's Day and Prof Rubinzstein-Dunlop is one of the few Australian women to be made a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science - its peak scientific body, I believe you have removed this page without due consideration. Biblioqd (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Biblioqd

(talk page stalker) @Biblioqd: I will restore the article for you, because it appears to contain more than one claim of notability. Be aware, though, that notability could still be challenged at WP:RFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Block Come on down and see[change source]

@Come on down and see: Hello. An new user account, Come on down and see as reverting other user's contributions, vandalizing pages rapidly, and is a vandalism-only account. I reported the user on WP:VIP. Can you block the user from editing? Psl85 Talk 18:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![change source]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your work as an administrator blocking vandals, deleting bad pages, and generally keeping the wiki clean and controlled. :-) Vermont | reply here 10:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't think I'm not grateful, because I am. We've kind of given up on stars over here, without having actually discussed it! I think a kind of mind-merge happens. The regular people are all dependent on each other, and get to know how each person works best. Then someone comes along and says, Ooo, you're not doing it the way we do it on En wiki.... Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the more I'm here the more differences I recognize between en wiki and this project. I'm trying to become one of those "regular people", if you haven't noticed. I like how this wiki runs. :) Vermont | reply here 12:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits by[change source]

Please reconsider your deletion actions (and the block on the anonymous editor). I am not sure if all edits by the editor was considered vandalism, and if some of the articles are even eligible for QD. Chenzw  Talk  13:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the user has produced a wide range of edits and new pages. There are examples of clear vandalism; new pages with dicdef contents, and new pages which are unsuitable for Simple. The deletion of phonetic palindrome is clearly justified as "not simplified" although it is not text from En wiki. Deletion of the dicdefs could be reversed as not suitable for QD. Overall, the editor has given the impression of being out of control, and other experienced editors have given vandalism warnings. I can accept that the editor is not simply a vandal, but some of his actions do need to change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and I am not opposed to a future block for disruptive editing. However, there were constructive edits in the most recent contributions, so I have accepted their unblock request with a warning on the probable nature of the IP being a shared one, and that future vandalism would not be tolerated. Chenzw  Talk  15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Merging articles[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross, can you please help in merging these two pages I think they mean the same thing. Hospitallers and Knights hospitaller. I am not good at merging so sorry for the trouble. Thanks.BRP ever 10:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

All together now in Knights Hospitaller. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete accounts[change source]

Is it possible to delete an account on this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Template help![change source]

Template:SI units has this weird green plus thing that ambiguously looks like a Good Article symbol. Can you please help remove it? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 04:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything out of place. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
When I leave the template in page, the green symbol still appears at the top-right corner. As soon as I take it out, it disappears. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
What's even weirder is that that green symbol on top-right also appears on the template page! Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 21:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think it's coming from the {{icon}} template. This template seems out of sync with tbe enwiki one. We might need to update the icon template and possibly import its module (if we don't have it already). --Auntof6 (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I hope this stuff is implimented soon. Because I am so waiting. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your block to User:Username21068[change source]

Username21068 was reported to you for vandalism and you blocked him or her for 31 hours. He or she believes that his or her edits were helpful and were accused for vandalism. I think he or she is wrong.

Concerning your block to User:If U See K[change source]

Hi. Thanks for catching this one, Macdonald-ross. Would you also consider this to be indefinitely blockable under the username policy? I don't know if you'd noticed, but the username reads phonetically for a well known obscene word. Thanks DaneGeld (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It was an all-vandalism account, registered with bad intent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 18:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Macdonald[change source]

I just found out someone created another user's userpage with a warning. This generally doesn't happen as warnings are given in talk page. So what is to be done in such cases. Should we delete user page? Thanks-BRP ever 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In general, you're right, but where is it? I need to see it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Clam99 is the one.-BRP ever 12:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Both notices were placed by user:Quentin B69, who has now been notified (and noted). Thank you for telling me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem, I will report if anything unusual happens in the future too. And thanks for deleting those pages .-BRP ever 13:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Question[change source]

I know that IP's, being likely that they're shared, don't have the same user space rights that a registered user does. I was watching the IRC counter vandalism network feed, and noticed that an IP made this page: User talk: Over the past few hours, that IP has also created a few templates and an article. I am not very knowledgeable yet when it comes to templates, so I'm wondering if those templates are valid. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

They just put a QD tag on Psl631's talk page. When warning them, I noticed your note on their talk page from a few weeks ago. I've reported them to WP:VIP. Vermont (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

C151C[change source]

Sorry to disturb thee most holy and righteous sysop on this sacred April fools but regarding your recent removal and addition of categories to Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CRRC Sifang C151C, I'd like to mention that the article is about a type of rolling stock and not transport companies. Thanks for your understanding. 1.02 editor (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

List of countries[change source]

Hi, Mac. I noticed your edit summary, "defined as UN members", when you made a change to this page. The page is a list of sovereign states, as mentioned in the hatnote. They do not have to be UN members. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You are right, though sovereignty is open to different interpretations (often in the past) whereas membership of the UN can always be definitively decided. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Alamania punicea[change source]

I nominated Alamania punicea for deletion because it was a word-to-word copy of this article. I don't understand why it was declined. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed you made some changes after declining the article. However, the content still seems to be the same as the Wikipedia article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The article is notable, and not especially complex. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. However, with some cleanup, the A3 problem can be sorted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I did some simplification here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism[change source]

I think article 2113 NFL Season doesn’t meet the criteria to be on Simple Wiki. Article is jickjack and not any reliable sources are provided please review this . MTKASH 12:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's not an article at all. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Next time, I think that article could simply be added to the quick deletion list because it appears to be a hoax. There is no need to contact M-R directly as any admin, not just him, can delete the page. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of "ABOUT YOU"[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross,

please revise the deletion of my article "ABOUT YOU". It's one of the fastest growing eCommerce companies in Europe and we already have a verified wikipedia article on the German wikipedia page ( Since we would like our German speaking customers to inform about the company, please revise the deletion. We have numerous citations from press coverage and all facts are neutral and non-advertising.

Thanks, HermineGranger

Undo on Simple Talk[change source]

Sorry for undoing your edit, I needed to restore the content and such on top of Simple Talk and, being on mobile, to undo your edit and immediately preceeding that undo the IP's edit is much easier than copying the lines from the diff. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for reinstating the top-piece. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Review[change source]

Hello mac, I was having a look around when I saw this article. I went through some sources and read the whole article but was unable to conclude that the subject is notable or not. And the article might be more focused on other things than encyclopedic details like mobile apps (you may see them in the references too. So what I am getting at is, if you have time please check the article once. Thanks-BRP ever 12:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It didn't claim notability, nor was there evidence to pass, so I QD'd it. Possibly some of its founders might be notable, but the firm does not inherit their notability. I think we have hundreds of articles which are not notable. I'm not seeking a witch hunt, just pointing out what the rules are. Our guidelines were not meant (as far as I know) to let in articles on grounds which En wiki would reject. Instead, I think our versions were meant to say the same things in simple language. However, the chart on En wiki reveals that their version is tougher than we have been applying, at any rate I think so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. I find many articles here which failed to prove their notability in enwiki and were deleted through the process there. I don't think our notability guideline is weaker than that of enwiki. To be clear, what I mean is, this is not the place where we accept "not notable" or "to be notable" topics which were rejected on enwiki. Thanks-BRP ever 13:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

YBN Nahmir[change source]

Hi Ross, may I ask why did you QD YBN Nahmir last month, ( I was on a wikibreak so I could not monitor what was going on). Isn't it on enwiki and it caught attention to many music lovers typically Hip-Hop and Trap. I would be happy if you explained as soon as you can. Thanks :)--DJ ( - ) 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Pages need to claim notability, and fulfill our requirements for notability. See links on recent discussion on WP:Simple talk, and also WP:Notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

About Priya Sigdel[change source]

i saw you deleted the page Priya Sigdel claiming not any notability. You should check the article first before deleting she is the winner of Miss Earth Nepal 2018. She is also in eng wiki [1] how could you delete without any AFD or RFD? she is notable so i request you to restore the page. MTKASHTALK Contribs 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Question on the subheadings you deleted[change source]

{"<Lucie Person (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Hello, for my article change on Chameleons, you've kept deleting my subheadings over and over again. You've stated that you don't use subheadings for smaller sections, but I think it does no harm, and that it makes it look more organized. Please consider adding it back?
Also, thanks so much for merging my article. Here's a barnstar for it:
WikiProject Barnstar Hires.png
(I think that's how barnstars work? A bit new to Wiki) :) Lucie Person (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Um okay that did not work how I wanted it. Anyways, looking forward to your response!
Lucie Person (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

If I make a comment as I did on sub-headings, I reflect the usual practice here. Editors just have to accept that others may revise their efforts, and experienced patrollers may adjust their edits to fit our methods. New editors perhaps don't think like this, but by joining the wiki everyone has to accept the general consensus. Issues can be discussed on WP:Simple talk if necessary. Anyway, we welcome you as a new editor, and hope you enjoy it. There is a page called Simple start (see top left), which maybe you've already noticed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Simple Articles[change source]

So you mean creating less words on this article? ill do that next time is gonna be simple greetings :)

  • Not so much fewer words as less complex language. See links on our Main page for advice. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Disney princess page film franchise[change source]

Why did you delete my "disney princess film franchise" page?

no you did not mention it!

Yes, he did: the reason was that the article didn't show notability. I have just deleted it again for the same reason. If you want to create it again, be sure to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross troll or not ?[change source]

you have something against me? everything I write, you delete it! the Dark Universe is a franchise! what is the problem of writing a page ??? !!!

Vandalism[change source]

IhateCrisCrotz (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock puppet of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). I've been playing cat and mouse with them for the past half hour because no admins are currently around to block him. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  • ETA: I see you're an admin. Can you please indefinitely block him? Obvious vandalism-only account + sockpuppet. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, he's blocked now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you make it a permanent block please? He is obviously a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal. The "Jack Gaines" account has been globally blocked for repeated "Alan Jackson killed country" vandalism. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Proof: [2], [3] (same user name being indef blocked on Spanish Wikipedia for identical vandalism). PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE indef block this guy. He's been bothering me since November and I guarantee a 31 hour isn't enough. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that, but we have oversighters who will look at the case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting Facts About The Library of Congress[change source]

I just wanted to note that it was not actually a copyright violation. Content written by employees of the Library of Congress during their official duties is available in the public domain. Anyways, it's deleted now and I'm sure consensus (if the RfD had continued) would have been to delete. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, that's a very good point! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Lake Maracaibo...[change source]

Hello, I am done for now. I just needed to fix the references in one of the sections copied from EnWP. --Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Duckweed...[change source]

As lake Maracaibo seems to have a problem with duckweed (or a species of it) I copied the article on duckweed from EnWP, and started simplifying it. I left out the taxonomy section (which is probably less interesting to our readers), and I am thinking the same about the research... section. Just a quick question: When you have the time, can you have a quick glance at the article? - Ideally, we want to be scientifically correct, but not burden our readers with too much information they will likely have little use for. --Eptalon (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

These En wiki pages as so badly written. Personally, I would not have imported so much. In places it's almost like a begging letter for more research funds. Still, as you say, it is relevant to Maracaibo! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have added the {{notsimple}} template into the page. Daniel "Danny" Lorraine (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

changing the definition of Lovelace[change source]

You changed the definition of Lovelace from the topic being a movie to being a last name. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you should already know the answer to this. "Lovelace" is ambiguous, and was replaced by a disambig page. There is still a page on the film. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[change source]

Thank you, although I don't think a month would be enough for him to stop calling any random person with an arabic name a terrorist MohamedTalk 21:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That was just to stop him while I investigated his other edits. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a sockpuppet of Tamara787, otherwise known as the Alan Jackson LTA. I've reported it to stewards to be locked globally. Vermont (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Dil Hi Toh Hai[change source]

Sir Macdonald-ross Why did you delete the notable article dil hi toh hai I cited sources and there was no problem with the article? Akir333456 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability is the issue. A film or other event cannot be notable until qualified critics have seen it and said it is so, or other sound basis for notability. Accounts of films which have not been shown are, unless exceptionally famous, unknown quantities. On the other hand, putting up descriptions of a film which has not yet been shown is to advertise it, even if unintentionally. That is a second point against it. Why not wait until the film is shown and some professional critics have given their opinion in the press or on the web? Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

JLO (disambiguation)[change source]

Hi, Mac. Just a note: the disambiguation category should not be added directly to pages. It should only be added by using a disambiguation template, even though it's a little more work to do that. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You did this again, here. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

deletion of Bad Education[change source]

Bad Education wasn't word for words, and should never have been deleted. The article wasn't complex. I don't understand; I feel ashamed when my articles get deleted like that. Can you tell me what was complex about the article? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have re-examined it, and agree with you. So I've reinstated it. I'm glad you protested! Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hardblocks on IPs[change source]

Is there a particular reason you are defaulting to hardblocking IPs? There's no way we can tell (w/o checkuser) that a legitimate user will not be caught in such a block. Chenzw  Talk  14:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
That would be your most recent block of that I am referring to, though I also note that all of your IP blocks made in June and July have been hardblocks (non-anonymous users only) too. Chenzw  Talk  15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

View Articles[change source]

Dear McDonald

I decided to come to your talk because I need to hear from you.

I would like you to view the article I created Julius Malema and if possible & suitable, have it verified. I would also like to know if writing a book available on Amazon and being sold on local markets is not a sign of Notability. This is because, a page Joseph Kalimbwe was recently removed despite, edits being made it. Can it be restored? Or being an author is does not meet notability.

I also noticed you redirected my article Thai Boys and wasn't notified on it. I am not sure if you could also have article from French Wikipedia because there is Godrich Gardee on that Wiki and I would want to move.

I thought of coming to your talk because i need advise on the way forward and if i need to make changes to any of these or not. It feels sad to create a page and have it deleted or removed or unattended. But I am eager to learn more and don't wish to make any changes myself because it's quite shameful to see the work I did go in vain.

I can also see Mbuyeseni Ndlozi is as having page issues as on en.wikipedia.

Best regards GPPPEM (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What you need to do is to fully understand our guidelines. Decisions to remove pages on WP:RfD are based on the discussion procedure. Decisions based on WP:QD are made according to its list of reasons. Don't tell me something or someone is notable: read the guidelines at WP:Notability and if necessary the full guidelines on English wiki. There's no future in discussing whether, in some other sense, a person or issue is notable. Those guidelines are what we go by, take it or leave it.
However, I will briefly discuss Thai Boys. I was just a case of keeping things together for the convenience of readers. On current events it makes sense to have one page to update rather than two or three. The page name will probably be changed again later, but that can wait for the moment. News events are bound to change pages, and my move makes it easier for readers and other editors to keep an eye on what is going on. The boys are not notable as individuals, but as part of the ongoing event. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand the decision on Joseph Kalimbwe passed and it was deemed not notable. However, I did put the character's published works on Amazon which deams it suitable for inclusion. I have read and seen everything on the WP:Notability rules and having made those changes of authorship. Unless you say being an author is not a sign of Notability on Wikipedia, I see no reason as to why it shouldn't be kept.

I understand your say on Thai Boys and would wait events completion. GPPPEM (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Amazon's job is to sell books. Our job is to build an encyclopedia using simple English. We have rules: editors are expected to accept the rules. Controverted pages are decided by community discussion. That's the way it is. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Does that then mean, that after having added the books to the character's profile, a page cannot be created because a discussion ended? Which in any case, the discussion was closed 3 days after it began unlike the required 7 days. This was after, I included the books on references in the second submission. Do check its history of deletion by you on the second submission GPPPEM (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Date of birth missing[change source]

Thanks for QDing this category. When you delete a category, please remember to also remove the contents: this category had an entry in it (which I just deleted). Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Americanisms[change source]

You have asked me not to use Americanisms like "Paris, France". What are your views on article titles? I generally use the same titles as in English Wikipedia but these are sometimes American, e.g. Switcher [4] for Shunter and Head-end power [5] for Electric train supply. What do you advise? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mock wurzel soup: I don't know what Mac was talking about when he said not to use "Americanisms", but it sounds like that was his personal preference, not any kind of policy or guideline. Any variety of English -- British, American, etc. -- can be used, as !ong as it's consistent within each individual article. See MOS:ENGVAR for the official guideline. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That is quite true, but it does not apply to articles about the British isles, which should not be written in American English. To write "London, England" is to be insensitive to the way English is used in that country. Also, it is pointless. The only reason towns elsewhere in the world have the names London and Paris is that they were copied from the originals. As for MOS:ENVAR note: "If there is a strong relationship to a specific region or dialect, use that dialect". Of course, En wiki is overwhelmingly American in its style, but if you write an article here you can make your own choice of spelling so long as the subject-matter does not impinge on the content (it would be strange, and offensive to some, to write about English history in American spelling). On the other issue (where technical terms differ between countries: switcher/shunter) the main point is to make sure that the term not used is mentioned in the text, and linked to the article title by a redirect if appropriate.
We get these issues because English is the most widely used world language. I know that Arabic has developed differently in the various countries of the Levant and North Africa, more so than English has done. I've no idea how they handle this on Arabic wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Writing London, England however isn't an ENGVAR issue however, when we write articles we are supposed to assume the reader has no knowledge of the subject. It is especially true on Simple where we somewhat cater to children. As such we cannot assume that everyone reading a page will know that London is in England even if the article is an article about a British subject. The reader may be coming from some small island in the South Pacific or something who has never been taught about European geography. That is a very different situation than the spelling of a word like color or colour in which case yes, by all means match it to the English variety of the subject matter. Adding the country is just a matter of clarity and specificity. People should not be insulted by information being specific and helpful to others. I am not saying you should always have both, but it is far from being wrong to do it even in British articles. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think I will continue to use the same titles as en wiki because it will be confusing for readers if they start on simple wiki and then find a different title on en wiki. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

what kind of list is needed[change source]

What kind of list do you want for List of female governors in the United States? Can you give me an example? 'Cause the lists for which you're asking could be anything. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Coral bleaching...[change source]

Hello Macdonald-ross,

could you have a quick look at Coral bleaching. I created a stub which is largely based on the EnWP version earlier today, but I am not sure how to simplify it further. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL <(^^,)>[change source]

Hello. I'm totaly suprised of your move. It shouldn't never happen. How is this possible one administrator has rights to delete any page at any time? Really is here no any discussion about deleting existing pages? Saying "does not claim notability" is just not true. Have you ever seen article before you self decieded to delete it? Simply saying Swedish language album was charted in few Europeans national charts in period of three years and certfied double platinum in Denmark by selling 40,000 copies, has top 3 on chart (it's alone enough for notability criteria). Let's continuie album was certified platinum in Finland too where over 30,000 copies was sold. Top 4 in Finland and top 5 in Sweden. Swedish language album was charted also in France, Austria, the Netherlands and American Billboard's sub list. There was also review. 6 singles has been released from album. It was all in the article. Unbeliveiable missunderstanding. In addition album has received European Border Breakers Award but it was not mentioned in the article. Administators can't really make such mistakes. Someone should look at this situation. Eurohunter (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well allow me to also state the fact that like on en.wikipedia, there should be discussions if an editor or even higher, an Admin sees an article as not being notable. To simply delete without leaving any message or setting up a discussion is not right. Not that I want to side you user:Eurohunter, I noticed sometimes user:Macdonald-ross does this too often without considering a discussion template for other editors to give suggestions like he did on deleting Persecuted In Search of Change. I feel the need for discussion must be put in thoughts before making such decisions as some of the articles already exist in other Wikis where admins allow for discussion to start and end by relisting if no consensus is reached. I hope to see changes (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother[change source]

Can you tell me what steps are needed to properly format and transclude this? I just realized I actually don't know how to do it. Secondly, are you able to mark it closed or does the person closing need to be a crat? Thanks. Operator873talkconnect 15:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the best action would to be to just delete it. Operator873talkconnect 20:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Already took care of it. Can just be deleted since you never accepted it. -DJSasso (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jurijusc177[change source]

Looking at this, it doesn't seem to be promoting anything specific other than saying that the user writes programs in their free time, and a bit about the languages they use (some of which is copyrighted). To me, it doesn't seem to be enough for a G11 or enough for a spam block. As I'm the newest (and least experienced) sysop, could you help me understand why those actions were taken? Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, reading the text it seemed to me that he was describing work which he is prepared to do. Second, he has made no other edits. Third, the page was replaced with identical content. His e-mail is not barred, and he can ask for a review, but first he has to come alive and communicate. If he promises to behave normally and contribute all may be well. However, we do get both bots and people whose only actions are to self-promote. Although the message is split up on separate lines, I think he is saying "I can do all this stuff for you". I think the implication is there, and deliberately. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

read this message please![change source]

Thank you for Moving Adeodatus I to Pope Adeodatus I and I Have Request , Move Pope St. Gelasius I to Pope Gelasius I , Move Pope St. Symmachus to Pope Symmachus and Move Pope St. Hormisdas to Pope Hormisdas Please! MartinJamesPogi (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I read all messages. I have no personal knowledge as to the correct form. However, what I will do is check each title against its version on En wiki, and make changes accordingly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
And also please check the navbox for Popes. It was either that navbox or the enwiki titles that made me rename those two articles in the first place. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Damasus I[change source]

Hello Mac, can you move this page?

Damasus I --> Pope Damasus I

The new title is per enwp. I don't have permission to move this page. Thanks.-BRP ever 10:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. I am thinking we should give this power to some of those trusted users who have been with us for some time. Of course, powers are given by a bureaucrat, not a simple admin! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Kirk Herbstreit and others?[change source]

Why u delete them there notable enough. Tabau (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[change source]

Just wanna make jokes, sorry, wish you a good day!

Dickinsonia extended[change source]

Hello there,

I extendd the article on Dickinsonia a litte, wriing about the problems of classifying them, their way of life, and history of dicovery. COuld you have a quick look, when you have the time? - Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Question[change source]

Just out of curiosity, why did you remove all the authors and a DOI (which provides a direct link to the published article, whereas the PMID only links to a bare reference) here? I guess you had a good reason for this, but I'm curious what that can be :-) Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Atricle has seven lines and is more than adequately referenced. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that doesn't really answer my question. In the sciences, the most important author is usually the last one and that info is lost if you replace those names with "et al". And a DOI is very useful for the reader, as it is a permanent link to the article that is being used as a source. This is the first time that I hear that sources should be truncated because the article is too short... Quite frankly, I found that edit very unhelpful... --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oxalaia Good Article review[change source]

Any word on the Good Article review for Oxalaia? I've expanded and modified the article after having brought the en.wikipedia version to FA. After that, I tried pinging the reviewers, and posting a message on one of their talk pages, but there have been no replies.

Feedback on my edits would be much appreciated, thanks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Predrag Stojakovic[change source]

It's an unnecessary redirect given that the search engine is already programmed to handle diacritics. Furthermore, it's wrong and misleading as to his real name. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bossanoven: No, it has a use. It prevents users from creating the same page twice as they may recreate it without knowing that the title with diacritics exists. Furthermore, redirects make reader jump from that title to the title with diacritics which makes it easier for them. So, I don't know how can it be misleading to real name. Redirects are cheap and these are the cases where redirects can be helpful. It is clearly given in Purposes of redirects. And when an admin declines QD it's probably best to discuss (WP:RFD).-BRP ever 02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Do u keep drafts pages on here. (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

RfD nomination of List of busiest airports in the United Kingdom[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of List of busiest airports in the United Kingdom, 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 the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/List of busiest airports in the United Kingdom 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. –Davey2010Talk 20:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollen Hans[change source]

Rollen Hans played in the NBA. That's widely considered the top level of play in the world for the sport of basketball, and therefore the article is inherently notable. Please restore the article. - Bossanoven (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bossanoven: I have restored the article, with our apologies. It's tricky to see notability with athletes sometimes, because we don't always know which leagues make a player inherently notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Why?[change source]

You erased my article about Lavori Publici Fc with this explanation:"complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion".....why? I request an explanation, because It is mostly a translation from es.wikipedia and in this wikipedia there it is no problem at all. And allow me to remind you that before erasing you should NOTIFY the wikipedian who created the article, so that he can defend what he did. Thanks.--Dozenfields (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick on the Delete[change source]

Hello, MacD-r - I see you just QD'd List of territorial entities where English is an official language. Did you look at my remarks on the Talk:List of territorial entities where English is an official language? I put in some basic work, all documented with edit summaries, and specifially asked for at least half a day's time. I also applied the Wait template. Perhaps I should have asked -- but HOW?-- that this be moved to RfD if it was G8-unacceptable (after approx. two hours of my repeatedly starting work on it!!! - of course My Changes and New Changes now show nothing of all these efforts). I did ping the QD nominator, but your action evidently precluded further intervention. I've recently returned to working on Simple English and surely have to learn the ropes so expertly handled by you regulars. A less veteran editor than I might be discouraged at this point; I ask for solutions. What would you advise me? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Edited to add: @Hydriz:, @Auntof6:, @Eptalon:, @Chenzw: -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted for the reason given: text copied word-for-word from English wiki. It is an editor's job not to put pages onto our wiki until they meet the requirements of our wiki. A deletion does not prevent an editor from putting up the same topic in a manner which meets our criteria. And you should know all this by now, I think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as the G8 for unsimplified complexity after import, I did put work into suiting the page for this WP - I diligently:
  • Applied the Template:Complex
  • Removed redlinked templates, categories, and See also pages
  • The vast bulk of page content is tables; there's relatively little text to simplify
The QD - A1 was applied when the page had a single line of text. I didn't think to change the QD reason or template, nor did anyone else. I don't understand why the QD went through without considering that this was a valid page worth editing as I'd manifestly started on. Why did you not think to move it to RfD? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree that articles should be in good shape and meet our requirements for simplicity from the beginning: I don't think mainspace is for development. There are some ways this could be handled:
  • Develop the article in userspace (a "sandbox") until it is ready.
  • Put the {{simplifying}} template on the page, although it shouldn't be left there very long (I'd say only a few hours), and should only be used when you're actively simplifying.
You said there's relatively little text to simplify. However, the lead, where that text is, is longer than many of the articles here, so it's not a negligible amount.
I am willing to restore the article if either you're going to simplify the text right away or you'd like it restored and moved to your userspace to be worked on there. Let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I'd like the article (which I didn't create, only adopted) restored as a sandbox version in my Userspace. Your other points are noted, with appreciation. When I searched for a supposed template for "{{simple}}" it redirected to "{{Complex}} - which I applied in hopes of attracting the efforts of other editors. I can also see the point of inspecting the redlinked pages in the present version to see whether these pages are equally notable for inclusion here. I'm not objective because I'm myself an immigrant in a wildly polyglot country, but I'd think readers of the Simple WP would be interested in this and related topics. So my To-Do list now includes importing and simplify the other major language lists (FR, AR, ES, etc.) in due time. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. It's at User:Deborahjay/List of territorial entities where English is an official language. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Deborahjay: If you need any templates imported, just leave a message at WP:AN
And I know what you mean about Israel being multilingual. I have a friend from the US who teaches English there, and she has interesting stories to tell! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Mya (unit)[change source]

Just letting you know that I removed a sentence you added to this article: the one about the format preferred on this wiki. That is called a self reference, and shouldn't be in the text of any articles. One way to understand why is to remember that Wikipedia articles can be copied to other places: if this article got copied elsewhere with that sentence, it might not be true for that other place. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Pages imported to Wiktionary[change source]

Hello! I had restored one, Air draft, as I hope to contest the deletion, as I believe that page should be represented on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary (not with the same content). Anyways, I noticed that there were multiple other pages involved, so I'm going to hold off on restoring all of them in case there's something I'm missing. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I believe such terms belong in a general article about nautical terms, or terms describing ships. If set as individual pages they do not seem to make a proper article. Although there are certainly some terms which deserve individual pages, the essence of an encyclopedia is that it contains articles rather than dictionary items. In the beginning, wikt was set up to provide a solution to this issue. However, there may be legitimate differences of opinion here... Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Vermont pinged me on my talk page on this issue, please do provide your comments there, thanks! --Hydriz (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Reham Khan[change source]

Hi, you deleted this article Reham Khan. Can you please tell me how is it not notable? It had a large number of references which prove the notability. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You have to 1) clearly claim the person is notable, and 2) provide independent evidence from qualified sources as to their notability. I make no judgements, just tick off whether or not the needed information is in the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
They meet both of your criteria. QD-A4 is designed for pages such as one whose only content is "john is a kid from high school", or something else with obviously no claim. It is not for pages like this, which has 18 references, most of which explicitly identify the subject, and almost all of which are reliable and well-known. Vermont (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Restore of Reham Khan[change source]

Hello. I restored the article as it does have a claim. It may not be notable, but it definitely does have a claim, and cannot be QD'd. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I also just restored Baadshah (1999 Film). Please, in the future, send articles like that to RfD. It has a claim, and has an article on 11 other Wikipedias. A4 is NOT for articles you think are not notable. They are for articles with no claim at all. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)