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: 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 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!

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 are 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)

Geranium deletion[change source]

I noticed that you QDed geranium as unsimplified from English Wikipedia. Although the article was from English Wikipedia, I had simplified it somewhat already and had planned on doing more when the article was deleted. Clearly, the simplifications that I had already done were not enough. Is it technically possible to restore the article in my userspace so that I could work on it more? If it is, would you be able to do that? Thanks. Diadophis (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Sub-pages are created by setting up a new page as a sub-page, for example, "user:Diadophis/Geranium" would be a sub-page of your user-space. Administrators will not delete this page without very good reason.
I feel like saying that if you start with an En page you may be less successful than simply imagining someone asking you "What is a geranium?" In general, English WP pages contain far more than a normal user needs to know, and in quite complicated language. One further thought: never put an article up on the site unfinished. Once it goes live on the site it is going to be assessed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've created a new version of the article at User:Diadophis/Geranium. Is this closer to what it should look like to meet this Wikipedia's standards? Diadophis (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for rollback right[change source]

Hi, Mac! I want you to now am I ready to get rollback right, or if I'm ready would you give it to me? Roj Serbest Kerîm Talk with me 17:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Golden Bowerbird...[change source] a species of bird, so why do you undo my edits when I put the species and genus in. It is NOT a family of birds!!! Qwerty number1 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User talk:[change source]


  • Between 13:40 and 13:47: the vandalism is done by
  • at 13:49, the revert is done by 94Rain
  • at 13:53, the warning is made by Cohaf
  • Between 15:47 and 15:51, I am wrong several times on the UT of I understand that the warning is already done.
  • at 16:07, you come to make the same mistake as me.
  • So now, I'm putting this page clean

Thank you for your participation. Regards. --Eihel (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Beril Böcekler[change source]

Hi there. You deleted my article on Beril Böcekler without discussion, without even asking for more sources, claiming that she is out of scope. She is only 14-15 years old and has several national records in an 80-million population country that is Turkey. Look at this page from English Wikipedia: How many times you see her name? When someone makes that page here in simple WP, will you not feel sorry for the red link to Beril Böcekler? I am trying to control my nerves not to upset an "admin". I was away from these pages for a long time, and you gave me this welcome. Thank you. If I'm alive when we see her with a gold medal in the Olympics, you will perhaps remember me. I prefer not to. Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @E4024: I think your tone is inappropriate. However, you can appeal the deletion at WP:Deletion review. I think your appeal would be successful because the article mentioned records that the subject holds. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is now in here, made by another contributor (more or less with similar sourcing as I did). BTW my "inappropriate tone" was not inappropriate. When people with some buttons just delete your work without even consultation, notice, warning or whatever else, they may expect to receive reactions in an "inappropriate tone", although mine was not inappropriate at all. Now I am asking, expecting and hoping to see the merge of historial of the page, because it is a privilege for me to have begun the article of this brilliant youngster and I really want it to be seen at the page history. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Bring my article back. Simple WP lost a contributor for bigotry. Auntof6, if you wish to keep better relations with admins that is your choice. I speak my opinions clear and loud. I am a transparent person. Bring my article back. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6, I see that in the meantime you have become an admin here (congratulations :) why don't "you" bring my article back. Read your words about Beril Böcekler above. I want to see my name in that page history. She is a total stranger to me but I am proud of this kid breaking adult women's records one by one. Bring my article back. Please, Aunt. --E4024 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
E4024, Auntof6 has been an administrator here for over seven years. I would appreciate if you kept a civil tone in your discussions with other editors, and assume good faith. If you had followed Auntof6's advice and appealing it through our deletion review process, this would have been settled in January. Regardless, this is easy enough to manage without a deletion review, as it's an A4. Given the existence of an English Wikipedia article, the medals achieved, and that the deletion here was one based on administrator discretion (an A4 deletion), I've restored the page. Best regards, and happy editing, Vermont (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Following the blocking of User:Va te faire foutre Cons![change source]

In addition to the blocking, this user violates the rule of good behavior following Wikipedia:Username. I write to you because I do not know what is your level in French exactly (fr-2 on your UP, fr-N for me). The translation of the user name in English is: "Fuck you Asshole" (non-literal). The name can be added to meta:Title blacklist. For deletion, I would leave the decision to the competent BUs. Sorry if you understood the name and did what was necessary. Sincerely and a good weekend. --Eihel (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I reblocked the user (my French is at near-native level); a user with this name is unlikely to be successful here, no matter what else happened...--Eptalon (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I allowed myself this. With pleasure and good evening. --Eihel (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. My idiomatic French is improved! Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I add the thought that a recent BBC production of Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte has the heroine leaving Lowood Institution with the words Baiser mon cul, a phrase which probably post-dates 1800 (the approximate date of the fictional incident), and which few girls today would use in a formal setting (which this was). Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Deem Bristow[change source]

Hello. I've restored the page as it did not meet A2; the IP had blanked the article and replaced it with a QD tag. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Amber Tang[change source]

Hi! There was a Chinese version at zh:鄧卓殷 and I was about to interwiki it... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Chinese version seems very spam to me but zhwp is more liberal in Notability and Advertising guidelines. I agree it should be gone as A4.--Cohaf (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Movies banned in China[change source]

Thank you! (I want to sign properly, but account got blocked). (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evading sock puppetry above. IWI (chat) 16:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Meyn[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross, I added the {{wait}} tag in order to have time to explain my submission on the talk page but the article was-nevertheless-already deleted. I have submitted the article before and made changes according to the suggestions of RHaworth, see here. I hope with this knowledge the deletion is worth considering an undeletion made by you. Dotsonti (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Dotsonti, you need to learn about wikilinks. Please note the changes I have made to your message. RHaworth (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Dotsonti, the issue isn't copyright violation only, it's spam, more details on your talkpage. Regards, --16:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at it again, and I think the deletion was justified. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Restore The Fox and the Hound[change source]

The article "The Fox and the Hound" was QD'ed because of the article seemed overly complex. I believe that the article was copied and pasted from the en-wiki by another LTA vandal happening back in June 2017. Could you restore it or check the history of that page? Zaxxon0 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I examined it. It was a complex word-for-word copy, and had been previously deleted several times before. The present En wiki version is almost identical. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thoroughbred[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross, I think you will find that the "T" in "Thoroughbred" is actually capitalised, like a lot of animal breeds. Please refer to the Wikipedia article on here and on the English Wikipedia, as well the dozens of individual Thoroughbred racehorses, e.g. Phar Lap. Thanks, —Jonny Nixon (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Spambots[change source]

This is a typical spambot, like all the others. It's now been locked as such, please reconsider your deletion decline. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Qri - a mistake?[change source]

Hello. May I ask why you deleted Qri under A4? She is the leader of a girl group that is top ten of all time in sales. May I ask that you reconsider, please? Perhaps you can read the article and its sources again? Or perhaps check out the article on en wiki, which I translated from over the course of several hours. Over at en wiki they are certainly much stricter about notability than here. And over the course of many years, no one at enwiki has questioned it. At the very least, please undelete so we can have a proper deletion discussion about the article. This took me a lot of work over several hours and it was discouraging to see it deleted. I am very careful about notability. Desertborn (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll start a thread soon about the scope of A4. Personally, I see it as heavily overused. Vermont (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: I would be happy to provide a list of news articles if you would like, specifically about Qri, to show notability. In fact, in the article that was deleted there was 11 sources from various publications. However, it is quite easy to provide more if needed. The more I think about it, the more puzzled I am about your deletion of this under A4. This subject is more notable than many other persons I have read articles on here. If you had to stick by the deletion of Qri as the standard for notability, many articles on simple would have to go as well. Was it simply a mistake? I did note this article was deleted once before under A4, many years ago. Perhaps you just saw that it had been re-created and deleted again? Of course in the years in between it is quite possible that a person becomes notable. That is what happened here. Desertborn (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I don't believe A4 applies here even if you had concerns over notability. Our A4 is broadly equal to A7 on en wiki. Note the following statement from Credible claim of significance on en wiki: "One, search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject; for example: 'John Doe is the State President of the Democratic Party in Tasmania'...Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists, deems that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied." That is pretty clear. While I can't review my article anymore, since it is deleted, I recall a clear claim to notability. Something to the affect Qri is singer and actress, who is the leader of popular girl group, a solo artist who has put out her own albums and singles, and been a lead in TV shows. Based then on this, even if you contest notability, I believe A4 does not apply. Therefore, I humbly ask that you un-delete the article. Then if you still feel it should be deleted, I ask that we have a deletion discussion per WP:DP. Of course, I feel Qri is clearly notable (and the consensus on enwiki agrees). Desertborn (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I hope you can see that you did not make a clear claim for notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think the two awards won are a claim of notability. If anyone thinks those particular awards aren't significant enough to show notability, they can take this to RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Macdonald-ross, for undeleting the page. I appreciate it and would like to do my best to address your concerns. Can you explain them in more detail? Maybe I don't think well or cannot grasp the meaning well, but I just cannot see where I did not make a claim. It seems clear to me and matches what is well accepted on the same article in en wiki. So perhaps if you can explain in detail, it will help. Then I can try to address it. Also, how would you suggest I change the wording or improve the article to address your concerns? Desertborn (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Having read your comment over at simple talk, I think I have an idea now of what you expect. I made a few edits to Qri in the lead section. Does this sentence satisfy your requirements for a claim? "She is known for being the leader of T-ara, which is one of the best-selling girl groups of all time." Or does it need further edits? If you think it is still not direct enough, what would you change to make it enough? Desertborn (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is what was needed, and in addition the claim is supported by reference #2. There is no further problem abut notability. Thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pelican eel[change source]

Just curious to find out why you deleted Pelican eel. Thanks in advance for replying Ottawahitech (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Auntof6, who declined the original QD request. I've restored it as administrators should not QD articles that are contested, which this was. Vermont (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: That depends on what you mean by "contested". The usual way to contest a QD is to use the {{wait}} template. The text displayed by that template specifically says that using that template "is not a guarantee, and the page may still be deleted if it meets the quick deletion criteria, or if an explanation is not provided very soon," so admins can and do delete pages contested via that template. But maybe you meant that a previous QD request had been declined? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That is what I meant, yes. Apologies for any confusion. Vermont (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
In the last 7 months, you've received 14 complaints about your deletions. Please try to be more careful. Vermont (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the Pretty Cure page[change source]

Hi there! I'm not the one who originally made the page, but I noticed that back in March, you deleted an article on Pretty Cure. May I ask why? Pretty Cure is a well-known franchise and also has pages in the en and jp versions of wikipedia, so it should meet the notability requirements. Pikaryaa (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think... I found a way to crash the servers! (Haven't tried it yet)[change source]

I would use Special:ApiSandbox to add a new section with the title "Test" and then substituting the sandbox on the sandbox page as long as the edit token is filled. I will keep pressing "Make request" every time the request is made to make another edit. It may not work if there's an error, or if I'm blocked. (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Q[change source]

Hello, i'm new to SimpleWiki, How do I add citations in "Change source", the features that makes it easy to add title, page etc seems to be missing, do I have to add it manually? I'm currently blocked on WikipediaEnglish standard, would I be able to edit on here? Lokiszm7 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress/Archive for this editor's history. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting pranks[change source]

I have noticed a couple of kids posting vandalism edits here recently. I wonder if sending a message at websites such as may help curtail the enthusiasm of students who vandalize Wikipedia? Or maybe even mentioning this on the talkpage of the vandals themselves?

It sure would be nice if contributors would not have to spend so much time reverting kid pranks, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies fo4 the. Strange. Words inserted here by some. Mysterious sy st em Ottawahitech (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Generally no we wouldn't contact people's schools unless the vandalism was particularly bad. Just the same as we wouldn't contact someones place of work. Eventually if the same IP keeps vandalizing here they end up with blocks that prevent editing for the school year anyway. At which point of the administration notices the block it is up to them to deal with it at that point. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire / Ivory Coast[change source]

You might not have noticed, but there is a current discussion at Simple talk about which name we should use for this country. I noticed that you changed some category and article names from the French name to the English name. I have changed them back. Please participate in the discussion if you want, but please do not make this change while the discussion is going on. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

shrek redirect[change source]

Why did you redirect Shrek_(character) to Shrek_(movie)? They are different pages for different things and just because the character is in the movie doesn't make it the same thing, IMO. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Email Help Team[change source]

Why did you delete this page? Vermont (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Likely didn't check the edit history and see it was just a page that had its contents removed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyvio[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross. AnuraagPatel's recent page creations seem to be derived directly from without/with little amendments. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well GRUH Finance is up for discussion now. It has not got an En wiki page under that title (but see Housing Development Finance Corporation). I checked his work on Ahmedabad, and that seems more or less OK, and not a copy of En wiki. I don't draw a conclusion about this editor, even though his work may need watching. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hide[change source]

Please hide the racist edits on African Americans. Thank you. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Your block of[change source]

I was wondering if you had noticed that I declined a block on this IP a little over an hour before you blocked it. The IP's edits were all within about 16 minutes, and they had made no edits for almost an hour when I declined to block. Their last edit shows as only one minute after the final warning was left, so it could have been only seconds later and it's very possible they made that edit before they saw the warning. No further edits were made before you blocked. Since the purpose of blocks is to stop bad edits, not to be punitive, there's no need to block if the user has stopped editing, especially if they have not been blocked before as in this case. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Q[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross. Just clarifying, is {{Placeholder}} really needed? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I've never used it, and I can't remember seeing it. Probably redundant. You could put it up for deletion discussion. If people need time to work on a page they can do it on a sub-page of their userpage. But many would not know this. Let's see if any others want to repond. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at Geometer moth...[change source]

Hello, I just created the article Geometer moth, and tried to describe its special movement, which gave the famliy its name. Could you have a look at the article, when you got some spare time? - In particular, I am not sure if they are moths, or butterflies, Lepidoptera seems to include both. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Chedi Amir[change source]

Hello Macdonald-ross, Chedi Amir is an notable article. I would like to keep this article , there are several articles of Chedi Amir , Chedi Amir is one of the first few Tunisian singers . I added more natable sources in Chedi Amir . Article now is finished for confirmation. please I need your help .I look forward to hearing from you . Regards-- (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments[change source]

Hey Macdonald-ross! I noticed this and thought about making a page in my userspace for amusing quotes written by Wikipedians in relation to our work here. What are your thoughts on this? Vermont (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel like displaying that kind of stuff could be considered npa, especially when it's directed at a specific editor. though lowkey it was kinda funny Computer Fizz (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that's far from a personal attack. Vermont (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on Katy Perry[change source]

Is there a particular reason you reverted the anonymous editor? The information added did not appear to be false. Chenzw  Talk  12:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The content seemed to support Witness more strongly. As for the dates, I don't think we should list everyone they date. Meaningful longterm relationships, yes. However, I don't feel strongly about these edits, so feel free to revert them. Personally, I think WP panders to pop PAs far too much. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the anonymous editor's intentions have been misunderstood here. While it's true that the cited source was specific to Witness, the source was not added by the anonymous editor. They added their own content, but just in the wrong place (before the existing citation). Furthermore, an engagement seems to be a pretty meaningful longterm relationship compared to ordinary boyfriend/girlfriend relationships. Chenzw  Talk  12:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Revdel action on Sentence[change source]

Unfortunately, while the edit summary could have been considered disruptive, that particular revision does not appear to be eligible for revdel under RD3. The deletion policy extends RD3 to "grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages...", of which the violation severity of the edit summary in question does not seem to meet that standard. Chenzw  Talk  10:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Basshunter discography[change source]

Hello. You have removed page without any warning. Schouldn't you start any discussion before page deletion? How I can simplify it? I belive it was already simple so I made other adjustments for SimpleWiki. @Djsasso: Told me that articles can be identical. @Auntof6: Eurohunter (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I found the prose part of the article was almost unreadable. Possibly that's because it seems to repeat all the details which are in the discography format. The latter is quite standard, and obviously acceptable. I notice you have a separate page about the person. Generally, one would expect to see a musical personality talked about in the prose section, followed by a discography table. I'll recreate the page so others can see what we're talking about. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Biography could be extended but I wanted to add separate discography first. Biography is in work on ENwiki and it will take long time yet to finnish so I would like to implement developed biography on SimpleWiki later. Eurohunter (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It can be the same as long as the language is simple. There is almost always something you will need to simplify however. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Privacy[change source]

There was huge privacy violation yet again by "𝔸𝕟𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕣𝕦𝕤" who publicly posted full name of "𝙻𝚓𝚞𝚙𝚌𝚘". how come it was there for half a year and it only now is deleted? We stored everything as screenshots.

Muesli[change source]

I made the Muesli article myself. It's rather small at the moment, but I reckon it could be easily expandable. Would you like to have a go at expanding this article? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 09:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. If I think of anything worth including I'll do so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Looks fine too, and covers pretty much most of what muesli is about. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 22:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, how is my Corn dog article? I added a bit, but I think that Corn dog is able to be expanded just a little bit more. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It's good. Interestingly, of all fast foods from the U.S. this is the least known in Britain. I had never heard the term. I would add its becoming popular in the 1930s, because it makes sense in an era when many were very poor, perhaps add the cut-through section diagram. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Start draft - can you start a page for Gabe Galloway[change source]

Hello one of my professors is running for public office and we think it would help the community become informed if there were a wikipedia page about him. Can you start that page? There is a lot of info about him available online. ---Cam682

The answer to this is that the community has discussed this (WP:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Gabe Galloway) and decided that he was not sufficiently notable. A previous similar discussion on the main English Wikipedia had the same result. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I will get best Katyn info from horse's mouth[change source]

You want to have created Simple English article about Katyn Massacre. I can provide you beautiful Katyn unique article that I will email you, so please give me your email here as reply. I will work with you until job is done but first I want favor from you as one good turn deserves another!

Thank you for your kind offer. However, I am not going to write that page. I was just drawing attention to its absence on our wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
somebody will email you in regards to this, confirm what he will request in return!

expand tag or stub?[change source]

do i put stub tag or expand? or both? when creating articles? Baozon90 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If you write a new page, you do not need to do either. Others will go through all new pages adding flags as necessary. There is Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project which sets out the scheme. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It is appreciated if article creators put stub tags on articles they think are stubs. Why leave more work for others? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I created a new page you might like. I actually created it for you. Baozon90 (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Nikki Lilly[change source]

Hi, mate! Nikki Lilly has won Junior BakeOff on TV in 2018, she has appeared on This Morning and BBC News. She was bullied because of her rare condition. -- (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Error for reverting on human[change source]

I am and feel really sorry for what I did on the human article; I thought it was vandalism. CentralTime301 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The IP previous to you had slightly damaged the page, and what it needed was to revert to the last good version. That is usually the last version edited by a regular registered editor. Some of these pages are very complex in terms of content, even though the expression of the content is simpler than on En wiki. It takes time to get used to this wiki, but you may enjoy it after a while. Because we don't protect the pages as English wiki does, we do get all kinds of things happening! Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Artem Zhylin[change source]

Good day! Which signs of advertising were present in the article? This is an ex co-owner of Ukrainian TV-channel and also a nominant and winner of an international award in sphere of television (as part of Russian scientific magazine). The sources were provided. Thanks --Wikikillz (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The page was advertising the person, and did not establish his notability according to the prescription under WP:Notability. Being rich and owning parts of companies does not in itself give notability. Supporting sources (in a language I cannot read) suggest they are typical trade sources. These tend to lack the quality of being reliable and unbiased sources. There is no equivalent page on English wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

copy paste from en wiki then into own words?[change source]

am i alloud to do this? Baozon90 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Please quote the permanent link on your edit summary to acknowlege the source as I did with Geezer Butler edit summary ==> created simplified page from english wikipedia

-- Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Block this ip??[change source]

Hi, User: seems to be a vandal only IP address of long standing... Can we put a permanent block on this. The recent temporary block only stopped this person for a day. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we don't usually block school IPs for long periods and virtually never permanently. The present block I've given is 3 months, which may cause the school to have a look at this person. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, as far as I can tell ALL edits by this IP have been reverted as vandalism, so it seems the school do not encourage anonymous wikipedia edits by students. As a teacher I encourage student editing via named accounts and would not object to my school IP being blocked due to vandalism. Teachers do not have the time to police student contributions, but using named accounts allows for some level of student accountability. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
update: For information: This IP is blocked on the english wikipedia until September 2022, having had a 5 year block put on in 2017. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm quite open to the idea that this issue should be discussed more generally, or that another admin should look at is and make whatever decision they think best. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you![change source]

For cleaning up all those QD's. --Gotanda (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Undoing mass Vandalism and other bad faith edits[change source]

Hi, thanks for blocking who had been creating lots of new redirect pages. None of them seem to be needed. Should all this users edits be mass-undone or removed on a case by case basis? I and another editor had started to fix them before realising what the user was doing; I would support removing them all as the easier option. Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and have done so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Larinus planus[change source]

Hello. I note you removed some of the content I put on Larinus planus as "too close to enwiki". Can I ask why you felt we can't be close to enwiki but must be different? I wrote that content over on enwiki, so I wasn't copying it blindly. I wrote it, and I was just putting what I wrote in both places. I did try to make it simpler for here. But at the end of the day, I try to write in Simple English over at enwiki as well. If you test the readability stats of the enwiki version, they aren't bad. So I just fixed the sentences that I thought needed help. Of course, your version is a lot simpler, which is very good. But I still wonder about why we can't be close to enwiki? I've done the other way around too (start a page here on simple and then copy what I wrote into enwiki also). What should I do differently in future? Desertborn (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I could not simplify it, I would not have changed it... I have brought over various pages I had written on En wiki, and rewrote all of them here. However, if you really feel a page on En wiki cannot be bettered, there is no rule which says it has to be changed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense. Thank you. Desertborn (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Help retrieve the article - Fuad Al-Qrize[change source]

Sir Macdonald-ross, How do I restore my articles and arrange them correctly? I have a lot of articles and resources that may provide you with a full note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuadalqrize (talkcontribs) Fuadalqrize (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fuadalqrize: Go to WP:REFUND to ask for deleted articles to be restored. You will need to present a reason as to why it should be restored. In this case, it was deleted because the article did not explain why it was notable, so you should explain what makes it notable in your request. Hope this helps you get your article back online :) Computer Fizz (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I don't have a big background in the retrieval request but I can give you more than one Arabic source that supports my article.Can you help me with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuadalqrize (talkcontribs) Fuadalqrize (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fuadalqrize: If you can show at least a claim of notability, you will most likely be allowed one week of discussion under RfD. Let meknow how your request goes! Computer Fizz (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: These resources that may help me:

My page is in IMDB An article about me in Wikipedia Egypt Who is Fuad Al-Qrize? Profile | who are they? – Economy Meet Fuad Al-Qrize at the Post Archived 23 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine. An African seminar on “Understanding the Universe” in the presence of Fuad Al-Qrize Fuadalqrize (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I need help. Because I don't master Wikipedia very much. Thanks <3 @Fuadalqrize: Fuadalqrize (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fuadalqrize: Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) after writing them, so we know who said what. I have been having to add that for you which I would prefer you do yourself.
Second, Macdonald's talk page is not the right place to have this dispute. You need to get to the request for undeletion page, which is here. Computer Fizz (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[change source]

This IP user has some very odd behaviour. Pages are being flipped repeatedly between a redirect and content. Most seem to be with pages connected to Canary Wharf. I noticed that you have been involved with changes on many of these pages, which seem to settle to redirect rather than have content. As examples 10 Upper Bank Street and Asset Management have this history. What is going on? Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is just disruptive behaviour, and have blocked the user. IPs are not allowed to do anything they like. Behaviour should be rational, with reasons given for actions. On this subject (business property in London), we had a period when (probably) estate agents were trying to get advertising for offices which were on offer, but this spree does not seem similar. I think it is just some bored person on the wiki at a time when no admin had been logged in.
On the general issue, we prefer the well-known name such as "Canary Wharf" to any based on roads and numbers. Details of address are made clear in the article. Any building whose name is known to the general public is notable enough to be a page, no matter what firm is occupying it at present. Significant companies may have sites all over the place in buildings none of which are notable. (All of this is obvious!). Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I think you're probably right about some bored person playing with the wiki. And I am glad we don't have to have a page on every building in the world... there are 56 on my street alone (my house is notable for me living there). Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on GAs and VGAs[change source]

Hi, over in the discussion Talk:Daniela Hantuchová you added that you might be in favor of a different way of managing GAs and VGAs, but that "nothing can be done about it." Was there a longer discussion somewhere back in the past? Is there really nothing to be done? Because some of our front page articles are not really doing the best to represent how good and useful this site can be. I'd be interested to hear your experience and asking here since it isn't really directly related to that or any single article. But, if you'd rather let it drop, I understand. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an important issue, and I can only make a start on a reply. First of all, there never has been a good discussion, but most regular editors will have noticed some of the problems. We all know that some of the stars are stars in name only, and that many very good articles have no recognition. Amongst the problems are:
  1. Editors propose promotion of pages where they themselves are the main, sometimes the sole "authors". That despite the fact that all the content is copied from En wiki. They are ego-tripping, and very resistant and defensive to contrary suggestions.
  2. Editors copy far too much from En wiki pages and are almost incapable of thinking and writing for themselves.
  3. Many pages which should be proposed are not proposed. I believe this is because of the time debit in the process of criticism but whatever, it devalues the articles' visibility. We have a lot of pretty good pages which could be reviewed for GA or even VGA. As you know, we can't really handle the work this would involve if we went through the present procedure.
  4. The criteria mean well, and are essential, but they are also biased towards the explicit. We've had many self-supporting editors say "I've put everything in there and answered every point" yet reading the article leaves one with a 'blah' impression. It should be something of a occasion, even an exciting occasion, to read a good or very good page. Is it?
  5. Solutions? There may be none. Not all problems have answers. However, I would suggest editors propose pages they have not written (except for minor edits) for a list which others can look through and give stars as they think best. Or if not stars, then some other symbol of note. We should reward more articles, and go way beyond those that ego-trippers propose for promotion.
  6. What are the chances of our redoing our system? Not good at all. Many discussions tend to go back to whatever rules were laid down at the beginning when we knew nothing! That is why some of us have not proposed changes in the system, no matter how needed they were. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Origin of life[change source]

I have undone the change in the section "Earliest claimed life on Earth". In the original quotation, Hedges asserted that life could be common in the universe if it arose relatively quickly on Earth. However, I don't think it follows that life could be relatively common in the universe if it arose early on Earth. While I think "early" could be plausibly paraphrased as "quickly" in the above context, the "relatively" modifier should remain as it is. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Undelation page on simple wikipedia[change source]

Hello ! How I can request a page restoration that I would like to write on simple wikipedia after a community discussion --Eyatu Ben (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to rewrite this article Rehmat Aziz Chitrali which has been deleted by you in the year 2015. This article has been deleted due to Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion. now I have rewrite this as per wiki guidelines, please help me in this regard-- (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Message on my talk page[change source]

Hello. I am a little confused as to which article you were referring to with your message on my talk page. I don't think I have took anything from the enwiki without translation. Thanks, IWI (chat) 13:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Philo of Byzantium, luckily a very short article! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I had simplified the article from the enwiki. Is there anything in particular that is too complex? IWI (chat) 14:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ignore me, you are right. Won't happen again. Thanks, IWI (chat) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahlem Fekih[change source]

Hello Macdonald-ross. I hope you're okay. I'm a fan of the Tunisian actress Ahlem Fekih. I ask for a rereading of the article that an Admistrator deleted. The article is notable and linked by several reliable sources. thank you so much Doctor tn (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This was deleted after a community discussion, and I am not going to undelete the page. It was deleted after comments like "nothing that would satisfy the significant and in-depth coverage criteria. This seems to be more promotional or a devoted fan". It was not a marginal case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Revelation 13:18[change source]

Hello saw your comments in the discussion about this article in questioning his claim of notability for wikipedia guidelines also what was misleading that point was not clear.


Three races[change source]

Regarding the article "Three races" that I created and you deleted: I have been working on the articles en:Mongoloid and en:Negroid. Both articles link to en:Historical race concepts, which has no corresponding article here. Since I think that "Historical race concept" is not "simple" English, I thought of calling the article "Three races". As stated in my edit summary, I copied most of of the text from Race (sociology), you deleted the article remarking "Duplicates info on Race and Races".

My problem now is that there are two different concepts of race: The biological one, which is covered in Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian race on this wiki, and the social one which should be covered by Race (sociology). I'd like e.g. the Mongoloid article to start with something like "Mongoloid was one of the three races ...". Because the two concepts are different, it is not possible to say "Mongoloid is a race (sociology)."

You are of course right that the information is given twice, but I think that the best solution to that problem would be to condense the historical part of race (sociology) - as the article stands now, more than half of the text is about the history of biological race concepts. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

An afterthought: I just saw that the article "Historical definitions of race" is red-linked in the sidebar of "Race (sociology)". I think that's the very article I'd like to create. What do you think ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll take time to read the articles here and on En again the weekend, and respond in a few days' time. Meanwhile, you can always edit a draft as a sub-page of your userpage. That's a facility which is much underused. The benefit is that major changes to wiki pages may get sorted out without mops having to make decisions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I have nothing useful to say! Go ahead and see what you can make of 'historical definitions of race'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Just created Historical definitions of race, hoping it will live a bit longer and planning to expand it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Its not quite right, because races are not the same thing as species. What is known from the genetics of human beings is that we are all one species. This basically means that males and females do not need to be of the same race to produce children. Of course, everyone knows this. But think back to before modern times. Then black people in Africa had developed skins which protected themselves against the sun, whose rays cause skin cancer, which is still a major killer in equatorial climates. Whereas in colder Europe there was a need for the skin to capture the sun's light to make vitamin D which we cannot get easily from food. So in colder climes, people with whiter skins have an advantage. Thus according to the climate where they lived, humans evolved somewhat differently. So the races of people are based on something very real: their ability to survive in the climates where they lived. Races are very real, but not necessarily in the sense of who or what we like or don't like. They exist for reasons that we can understand (though I admit most people don't understand!) Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I'm quite able to understand these things. While I perfectly agree with you regarding skin colour, I don't agree with you regarding the existence of races in the biological sense of the word. And I don't know a single recent and decent source which does. Templeton (source no. 2 at Historical definitions of race) explains very well why different skin colours and other genetic differences are very real, but races are not - two of his examples can be found at en:Negroid#Criticism based on modern genetics. That Templeton is not an outsider, you can see from the AAPA paper (source no. 1 at Historical definitions of race). --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Persian inscriptions on Indian Monuments[change source]

Hello. It took a long time to translate the page. Why was deleted so quickly? Although it is in Wikipedia. This is unfair (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The page is indeed in English Wikipedia in almost exactly the same form. For this wiki the language must be simplified, and that means more than just changing a few words. I judged the page to be essentially the same as the En wiki page. You need to simplify the page much more if you want to present it here.
Also, just as important, you have no independent critical assessment of the book. That means the article is a kind of advertisement. We don't want your opinion of the book, we want the opinions of expert scholars who are able to assess its worth. We are not a place to advertise a product (such as a book or anything else). We are a place where readers may look to find out what experts think about the book, film or whatever. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello there[change source]

Hello there Macdonald-ross, I left in 2017 and just started back up again. I'm sorry for all that I did between 2016 and 2017. As I just came back, could you tell me where to start? Thank you very much. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's usually best to write about something one knows about. But many editors put their own opinions into an article, where they should have put a source's opinions. So I don't start a page unless I know what sources I'm going to quote. If you choose to simplify a topic from another wiki, you need to choose one which looks as if it has good sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 16:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback issue[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross, just noticed this. I assume you reverted on purpose, but didn't spot the obvious! I have changed that part back manually. All best, --Yottie =talk= 11:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't feel your language to be very "nice" (I'm quoting WP:BOLD). I'm referring to your remarks Basic terms you must understand and just because an editor wants to. Although my contributions have been few so far, they were guided by the desire to improve this Wiki, not according to what I "want", but according to what mainstream science says. I think there should be more active editors at this Wiki, and maybe a more "welcoming" language might help encourage some newcomers. Or would you rather have an article praise racist Carleton S. Coon's landmark book The Races of Europe (those words were part of what I removed at Race (sociology) - and had been there since 2009 !) ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi![change source]

Thanks for adding to my new and developing page, it's greatly appreciated! TheBlankSlate (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

created page on wrong title, now want moved[change source]

I accidentally created a page on the wrong title and now want it moved to the correct title for two reasons: a) to match title on regular English Wikipedia and b) so readers here don't look at the title and think that Oxford invented the comma. You can easily just move the page as it will overwrite the redirect automatically since you are autoconfirmed. Even if your sysop privileges were lost during the time I wrote this section of your talk page, as long as you aren't blocked, your account should still be able to move the page and easily overwrite the redirect while creating a new redirect. (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done moved it for you :) IWI (chat) 21:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Big Weekend[change source]

I saw that in 2012 you coordinated the World Heritage Site and National Park Big Weekend. I've looked through and I can see many of the newer sites haven't been created, and the list articles are not up to date. I updated List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and List of World Heritage Sites in the United States a couple of weeks back. I think we would benefit from another one of these Big Weekends. What do you think? IWI (chat) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the idea worked well at that time. It gave users from all over a chance to do something patriotic for their country, as opposed to regular editors doing all the pages. Of course, the mechanics of doing it are difficult for some users. And, inevitably, most of the results needed work from regular editors.
Of course we do want the lists to be up-to-date. And perhaps what we need even more is articles for the best known and really significant places. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
As long as they are created, they can be expanded by users. I think we would benefit from another one of these, or a similar one, if you have a better idea. The Big Reference Weekend went well, but only regular users could contribute. IWI (chat) 00:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @ImprovedWikiImprovment: Also keep in mind the amount of work the coordinator has to do -- finding and tallying the relevant changes. That might be why few people organize these. You might want to ask Yottie what was involved in that. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: You're right, it is a lot of work. If it turned out thet I were the coordinator, I would ask Yottie or somebody else for advice on that. At the moment this is just a general proposal, however. I have no problem with doing such work myself, if nobody else wants to. IWI (chat) 12:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A3 QD[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross, I hope you are well. I noticed you declined two QD requests I have made. Both of them were direct enwiki copies without attribution and thus a copyvio. There was no simplification or conversion. It's unclear how you see that it did not fit the criteria of A3. IWI (chat) 14:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not to speak for him but A3 is about being overly complex. Based on the comment he made on one it appears he didn't think they were. Remember an article can be identical to the one on if it is simple. The copyvio aspect wouldn't be A3. And personally I wouldn't delete an article for lacking that, I would just add it. Delete is a last resort. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, although it shouldn't have been left without attribution. Copyvios are the most important deletion criteria, not to be taken lightly. IWI (chat) 20:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree about the importance of attribution, but that is a separate matter. I did not see those pages as too complex. Therefore they didn't meet the QD criteria IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniella Monet article called complex and deleted[change source]

How was this article complex? It should never have been deleted. What was wrong with this article? Angela Kate Maureen 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

An IP user today copied and pasted from the English Wikipedia into the already existing article making it complex. I have restored it without the complex copy and paste. Only (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability[change source]


you recently deleted Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem, with the rationale "phrase is not notable". However, it has an article on enwiki, and has been there for over 15 years. Please elaborate, thanks. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) (remember to {{ping}} me) 18:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Your signature leaves almost no room for the answer. The answer is: Yes! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick question on edit summaries[change source]

Hi, I'm seeing some editors (i.e) using "#WPWPTR #WPWP" on their summaries. Forgive the ignorance on the abbrev, but what does that mean? — Infogapp1 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've no idea. Perhaps means they had taken material from En wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is a contest going on through commons I think it is about adding pictures to articles and you need to put that in your edit summary I think to indicate you did for them so they can count who added the most. I don't have the link off the top of my head to the contest. -Djsasso (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Oh, that's interesting. I tried to look at the Challenge of the Month and I only saw the ones calling for original works. Do you know of any central board of where cross-wiki notices/announcements/challenges are posted? Or do I need to sign up to some mailing list or something? It would just be interesting to see what are the ongoing initiatives — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it was meta not commons. meta:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos. -Djsasso (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice. Gotta love challenges. Is there an easy way to find all articles that have no images? Looked through Special Pages just in case such category may have been created in the past, haha. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: I think I found some resources. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tycho's Supernova[change source]

I noticed you created this article, but it already exists at SN 1572. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. IWI (chat) 17:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there a page history issue here? Could the revisions of the new article be added on top of the old one? IWI (chat) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
So what: the page had about one sentence in it... Merging could be done, but not by me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. Well the page should ideally match enwiki at SN 1572. This would involve either a merge or the old article being deleted under G6. The latter doesn't seem like a good idea, as the revisions go back a while. I may ask at AN later today. IWI (chat) 05:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Big Weekend[change source]

Noticed you added BWE on Limes. Should we be using that or BWW? Thank you. — Infogapp1 (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Yes! One of those! I don't mind. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Siddesh[change source]

I guess it's not possible to salt this page since they keep making different permutations each time? What about a range IP block? It's been recreated more than 4 times in the past couple of days by possibly exactly the same people. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want a range IP block, then best to contact User:Chenzw. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, I just requested for CU since I just realised there's an account that can be tied to previous ones. Thank you. — Infogapp1 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

possible error on the page[change source]

Hello Macdonald-ross,

  I don't want to (have time to) learn how to edit Wikipedia. I sent this comment to Wikipedia and they determined that you had made the change, so I am contacting you to verify the number, and hope that you will correct it (if it is an error).
  I suspect the error but am not certain. On the page, in the Sortable Table, under Nematoda, for the Species described column (last column), it currently reads 80,000-1,000,000. That is a huge range with the higher number 12 times the lower. In the few other examples in the table that give a range, the higher number is less than 3 times the lower number. Furthermore, 1,000,000 would rival the Arthropods for number of species. While this is possible – I know there are lots of nematodes – I suspect instead that it is just one too many zeros and the range should be 80,000-100,000. 
  Further support for the idea it might be an error is the textual part of that Wikipedia page. First let me point out that in most cases, the numbers of species in the textual part differs from the numbers of species in the sortable table. Nevertheless, the textual part gives “over 80,000” species of Nematodes. I would expect that if the number could be as high as 1 million species, that amazingly high number would have been mentioned in the textual paragraph.
  If it actually is correct, consider inserting something to that effect in the text part to help a future reader to know that it is correct.
  The fact that I don't know whether the number is correct is a convenient excuse for me not to make the change myself. However, I also lack the time/gumption to learn how to correct Wikipedia myself (sorry). I hope you will be able to do it.
  Thank you and best wishes, -Tim Pearce (
  • Well, it's worth remembering that out title says "Simple", and our readership is meant to include children, foreign language readers and so on. But actually, YES, I do have a source:
"The phylum Nematoda is one of the great success stories of the animal kingdom. More than 15,000 species have been described, of an estimated 1 million living species". The passage goes on to say that many nematodes are parasitic (that's obviously true, and is doubtless the reason that as many as 1m. species are estimated.) Source: Barnes R.S.K. et al 2nd ed. The invertebrates: a new synthesis. p90.
The Simple WP page you refer to was not written for the main English Wikipedia, but for this much smaller wiki. As such it does not aim to be so academic as the main English wiki, and references reflect a certain informality. But behind that informality are some editors who are just as capable and concerned with facts as any others.
NB: I don't have to hand Croll N.A. & Matthews B.G. 1977. Biology of Nematodes. London: Blackie. That might have something to say.

Anyway, thank you for taking the trouble to contact us. Nothing is more annoying than figures unattached to a source! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your changes at Negroid[change source]

I can't quite understand your recent changes at Negroid. Although you know that your changes are controversial, you marked them as "minor". You didn't give an edit summary. You left the references, but they don't match the text any more (The references say that there are no distinct races, you say that there are no distinct species). We had that discussion before, you stopped arguing after I gave good recent scientific sources. The AAPA (as far as I know, a respectable body of scientists who normally know what they say) says that The belief in “races” as natural aspects of human biology ... [is] among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past. (see the end of the first referenced source). I think WP should follow modern science and not try to keep alive a damaging belief. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I will reply to this , but at the moment I have to deal with other issues. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
When you do, I'd be happy if you could consider my complaint at #Rollback issue. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I too share the concern above. If you weren't a longstanding editor here, I might have been inclined to revert this. Your change goes against what the sources say. Also, you shouldn't mark such edits as minor, although I'm sure it was a mistake caused by habit. IWI (chat) 19:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar[change source]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
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)
Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for contributing to the Big World Heritage Weekend Macdonald-ross! We have made great improvements to this area as a result. :) IWI (chat) 17:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Biting the newcomers[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross. I saw you left a message on a new user's talk page. Messages written that way can drive new users away, so please try to be a little nicer to them. They are new and do not yet understand our policies and guidlines, but they will learn slowly. :) Thanks, --IWI (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • They've been going non-stop for the last four days, and past experience shows that such editors continue in the same vein. It just leaves us with dozens of pages which do not meet our basic need for a page to be a version of the En wiki page in simplified language. If past experience is any guide, many will never be re-edited. In fact, if we were willing to put up with this, we could write a script to do it automatically. The issue resolves into whether we have properly simplified pages, or more pages many of which are not simplified, merely shorter. Being shorter is not by itself a correct interpretation of our aims. Which is why we spent time some years ago in looking at the idea of Basic English (though that in the end was only a partial solution). I might add that many of our regular reviewers do not adequately simplify language as they come across it. It may be that the objectives behind the creation of this wiki were not realistic, but that could be said (has been said!) about WP in general... Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    They have had several warnings, so if they continue, we can block them per COI. In this case, I will go through this user's pages and sort them out. Let's see if they can learn from the messages left to them. The attribution message I left seemed to work. --IWI (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Country American[change source]

Hi, I noticed you deleted most of the blank American ethnicities articles with titles. If you want to delete all of them, you missed Welsh Americans, British American, Dutch American, Multiracial American, and Portuguese American. If you don't want to delete them, that's okay too. Thanks. Naddruf (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. They had all been previously discussed and deleted (more than once). Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. These have popped up again from one user such as Manx Americans. Can they all be deleted? --IWI (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I see zero value for a dicdef article. I am keen for deletion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Should we highlight this in a more public venue like WP:AN? --IWI (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Let me talk to the editor first I guess. See what is their motives? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I may have missed one in verifying this but I don't think any of this sort of article have actually been deleted at Rfd. I think you are confusing them with Categories which were. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/American actors by ethnicity and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Categories showing mixes of national ancestry. Articles like Manx Americans on the other hand would be a legitimate stub. -Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism[change source]

A new page called Baker boy was just created by Please delete it. There is nothing good on that page. Please respond quickly

Barnstar[change source]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Because although I know your primary objective is building an encyclopedia, you keep the Wiki ticking with your regular deletions, helping us stay on top of things. Keep it up! Yottie =talk= 08:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Chinese sparrows...[change source]

I was just doing a small page on it (done now, enough for a stub). Wasn't there a simliar campaign to eradicate flies in Japan (Tookio), or was that just some side effect of building a megacity?--Eptalon (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete request[change source]

Can u please delete Rettai Roja, Rajamagal, Nachiyarpuram and Endrendrum Punnagai (TV series), as these articles are obtain from English Wikipedia.. Ppkalabika (talk)

Sir also Gokulathil Seethai (2019 TV series) has copied one from English Wikipedia Ppkalabika (talk)

This one is now acceptable, having been edited by one of our regulars. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Protection of this page[change source]

Please re-consider the protection duration of this page. Administrators, by nature of the role, may receive messages/requests for assistance that come from non-autoconfirmed users. Indefinite semi-protection should be used only for sustained heavy vandalism with no other alternative option. en:Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_talk_pages recommends that in cases where protection is applied to severe vandalism or abuse, a link to an unprotected subpage is left to allow good-faith comments from other users. Chenzw  Talk  13:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Chenzw. As an admin, you will have many interactions with users who are not autoconfirmed. I would at least consider shortening the duration of the protection, if not unprotecting. --IWI (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete request[change source]

Please delete Segunda Guerra Mundial Space chinedu (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Space chinedu: I've deleted the page. In the future, it's more effective and efficient to tag the page with the Quick Delete template: {{QD}}. Operator873talkconnect 13:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)