User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 →

Exporting your articles[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross,

I can see your name quite often while importing articles from SEWP to Vikidia in English! See: what a work! Nevertheless I'm not doing massive imports, rather choosing and reworking articles. Bye, Astirmays (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Cymothoa exigua[change source]

I really have to stop reading Wikipedia at bedtime! --Auntof6 (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article[change source]

Hello, a small note and complaint please, hope you will kindly take this in the right spirit. I am sorry that you deleted my article on Jocelyn Orc-Saeed (also sometimes written as Jocelyn Ortt-Saeed), on grounds of 'notability'. I wish you had please had been kind enough to consult me a priori, as I have already extensively written here on various talk pages and in various discussions about the issue of Pakistani Literature in English and its special role and place and also tried to explain, time and again, that 'notability' does not necessarily reflect a Net search -- in my country some writers are very popularly read and taught even at university and college levels eg Taufiq Rafat, Ejaz Rahim, Jocelyn Orc-Saeed, Hina Faisal Imam etc but are perhaps not so well known abroad where writers like Mohsin Hamid and Kamila Shamsie might be better known, relatively speaking. Most people here and in this part of the world, still rely mostly on published sources, not online search results, and I feel that it would be somehow wrong to limit the concept and idea of 'notability' to a few people who are 'known' to people abroad, just because their names crop up in some search engines. I really believe, please, that this whole matter/issue of Notability needs to be looked at in broader contexts please. Otherwise whats the difference between the Simple Wikipedia (which for example is consulted by those students in my country who have knowledge of English and access to the Net too) and the regular Wikipedia/s (which is/are difficult and too complex for most people)? I hope that you will please, at least consider what I have said thanks. Surely, a consultative, mutually helpful and supportive process is better ? Best regards, Hamneto (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Hamneto

Yes, I understand the person might be well-known, but I have to follow our guidelines. A reliable source is reliable because it has some mechanism to make sure it is reliable. That is where most web sources fail. I have to see that some independent critic or expert says "This person is outstanding" or some such, and says it in a setting which is monitored by a trustworthy panel or other process of quality control. The alternative is for a person to win important awards. The word 'important' does not mean 'self-important': it means independent people think the award is important...
I have written biographies on another wiki about a less well-known society. I used prestigious encyclopedias and such-like sources, and no-one questioned that the people were notable even though few had ever heard about them. Maybe you can do the same for your biogs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Using wiktionary?[change source]

Hi, I hope that you can help with a question here. I wanted to simplify Alternation of generations, and the simple English wiktionary seemed to be useful, but I haven't been able to figure out how to use it for words on pages here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't use direct links to English wiki or English Wiktionary. What we have is Simple wiktionary, wikt for short. You can copy-paste across and adjust for wikt or our alternation of generations page.
  1. to place a flag on a page type: {{wikt}}
  2. to put the wikilinked word into text type; [[wikt:wantedword|wantedword]]
  3. to find out if wikt has the word, type wikt:wantedword into a searchbox and press the button.
Hope that helps. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WW1[change source]

I dont know what you did or edited or suggested, but just to be clear is just going to be like a revision for spelling, complex words, etc right? Or is there going to be deleted or something like that? Iam not being rud just asking.--XKiller59 (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You made a large number of changes, and there were various problems. One thing to remember is that the talk page of articles is there for discussion of improvements. Another thing is that changes to long-standing pages do need sources. Even if what you want to say is correct, you still need to have reliable sources. Otherwise your edits may be seen as original research (OR), which we don't allow.
I think you were quite right about the 'Beginnings' section. It does need a clearer structure. You could have made suggestions on the talk page. Listing by date is one option, but I think some historical information about how Prussian militarism grew is also needed. The domino effect of treaty obligations was also important. Also the lack of communication between the leaders of the main nations. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right and I understand, it´s that most information comes from a book which I have which I did try to put, but it didnt match. Also the thing of Prussian Militarism, I think it needs to be briefly explained in WW1, but it should be a page of like the causes of WW1 and there the main points and information of what you suggest should be put there. --XKiller59 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation style[change source]

Hi Macdonald-ross

It's not a major issue, but in your edit comment in the article Military intelligence you wrote: " follow a standard format: refs name,. date first; and in general, don't link dates". Actually, I thought I was—following a standard citation style, that is. The citation style used in the article was Chicago style, not APA. In Chicago (CMS), Turabian and MLA styles, a work with an editor but no author places the editor name(s) after the title. APA lists the author, or alternatively the editor with no author, first, then the title, etc. The change had the effect of mixing styles and I'm not sure that's what was intended—which is why I'm asking. In our own Wikipedia:Citing sources we don't mention citation styles but the English wiki guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources it does. The guideline has been there is no "house style" and that editors are free to use APA, MLA ,CMS, etc., as long as one style is used consistently throughout a given article. Also, in our collection of citation templates, several do use the Chicago style. When citation templates are used I've always tried to keep the style consistent. Otherwise, in most of the articles I've created or added sources to, I just manually wrote out the citation using Chicago style. If I've missed something here that has an effect on this, I'd have to plead ignorance. But I don't think I did. I really hope this doesn't mean I have to go back and change all the source citations I've written with editors and no authors. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid this! Here goes:
In order to cope with the flood of references needed for academic subjects, especially science, I adopt a standard pattern based on widely used methods in science. That way I can type faster, and do more refs in the time I have available. The basic principle is to give readers the most important information first, which is usually the surname and date. So one goes:
Surname, initials/ year of pub/ Title (lower case apart from initial and proper nouns)/ place/ publisher/ page #. Or for journals:
Surname, initials/ year of pub/ Title (lower case apart from initial and proper nouns)/ journal title (italic)/ volume (bold)/ page #s.
I have versions for single chapters in books with multiple authors, and other variations. I don't even think about what individual publishers do, because there are too many variations. As it happens, my system is closer to what Nature does than Science, but it's better to have one system than many. Most pages from En wiki that I consult are fairly chaotic, and I always change their reference formats to my system because it is easier on the eye to read a standard set than to deal with all sorts of variations.
Personally, I find it frustrating to have to search for the name and date. Also, your system puts in information which no-one actually needs. Examples are publication places multiplied: pointless, I think. Overdetailed journal guides: "No. 2 (Summer, 1964)": pointless, they are bound in volumes. Every other word in upper case: pointless, and hard to read. Information which is not relevant obscures that which is vital. The lunatic complexity of references got by using templates is a great argument against using templates. They have more commas, full points, brackets, etc, that any reference system I've ever seen. References, like all aspects of a text, needs to be looked at from the perspective of the user who is only going to spend a short time reading it. Therefore, the structure should be the simplest possible consistent with giving the vital information clearly.
Naturally you are entitled to use a different system, and in any event consistency is indeed one of the main principles. I don't usually comment on that aspect of another person's editing, and I had not realised the effect of the Chicago style upon position of the name. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

treat vandals as vandals[change source]

Okay, I will do so, thank you very much for the indication. Greetings.--Syum90 09:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning levels[change source]

Mac, please don't ever discourage someone from using level-1 warnings. When the warning system was developed, a lot of thought was put into how people should be warned. The different levels exist for a reason. Even if we get very annoyed by vandalism, we need to look at the big picture, especially those of us who are admins. If you see an editor leave a level-1 warning where you would have left a sterner one, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with what they did. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The following are the guidelines for Multi-level templates:
Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or something similar.
Level 2 – Does not assume whether or not the editor is acting in good faith.
Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; warns editor to stop what he or she is doing.
Level 4 – Assumes bad faith; a strong, final warning to the editor to stop what he or she is doing.
Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; a strong, first and only warning to the editor to stop what he or she is doing.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Those aren't guidelines for using the warnings. They're descriptions of the wording. An important guideline of Wikipedia is to assume good faith wherever possible. Starting with level 1 keeps us in line with that. Again, whatever you might choose to do, please don't tell others not to use level 1 warnings. Even in a case where it might be appropriate to start with a higher level, it doesn't hurt anything to start with level 1. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of large parts of Zoonosis[change source]

Just wondering why you took out a large section of the article on Zoonosis. Thanks in advance. MS10EL (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

1,640 KB had been put in, and my editing resulted in 999KB being taken out, so the article is longer than it was yesterday. None of the material taken out had sources. The main reason for my editing is to make articles more suitable for this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge of Inoculation and Vaccination[change source]

Just wondering how vaccination and inoculation are the same? Despite them both being a form of immunization, vaccination uses dead or deactivated forms of a pathogen to cause an immune response. Whereas inoculation infects a person with a pathogen in a controlled way. Sorry if they are too similar to require different pages.

PS: Thanks for information on sandboxes will allow me to check grammar etc - before making edits.

TobyDevereaux (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Vaccination is widely used for both cases. Anyway, we are not discussing a merger at present. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Julia R. Cadrain[change source]

I do not agree with your decision to delete this page.

she is a beautiful, beloved, talented and popular cantor in the biggest synagogue in Manhattan and absolutely deserves to have a page here. she is a well known figure among the community. (although I know I cant fight you, I feel I have to state my argument).

all the best נייגעריגער (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It is quite OK to state your point of view. The issue was not about her quality, but about her notability in wikipedia terms. The local guideline is at WP:Notability, and a much more detailed account on the corresponding page in En wiki. Since an assistant cantor is not a position which automatically makes a person notable, the issue rests on what significant and independent sources have to say about the person. The thing to bear in mind is "notabiity requires verifiable evidence". I judged that in this case the evidence was lacking. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
well she may be officially only the assistant cantor, but I think she is more notable than a lot cantor's and she leads services on a regular basis by herself.
she was also among the first cantors to be ordained by Hebrew Union College - JIR’s Debbie Friedman School of Sacred Music. she is also a tutor and yoga instructor. so for what I think she is really unique and notable נייגעריגער (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) She sounds like a very interesting person. We just have to make sure we have evidence of her notability according to Wikipedia's rules. No matter how "beautiful, beloved, talented and popular" a person is, or how notable we might personally think she is, we still need to have reliable sources that show she is notable by the Wikipedia definition. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to say that she was raised catholic and converted to Judaism to be a cantor. I think this is interesting and notable enough, but I will not argue with you any more. I just hope you will reconsider your decision and put it back. thanks. נייגעריגער (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Living Hell[change source]

Hey, Mac, please remember to close the RfD on this -- it's not enough to just move it to the "closed" section. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what happened! On my trial page the format was perfect, yet when I did it on the active page the top section was missing. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Maybe you accidentally hit "back" or something -- I've done that before! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A.fleming[change source]

What was it about this article that didn't make sense to you? I thought it could have used improvement (if we hadn't already had Alexander Fleming), but it definitely made sense. I was going to delete it anyway because I don't think it's a good candidate for a redirect, but now it's on record that the article was nonsense. That reflects badly on the author and could discourage him or her from contributing again. Would you please restore the article and delete it with a better reason? It doesn't have to be one of the predefined QD options. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

deletions?[change source]

At least leave a message on my talk page. --28ekcck (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Same with me please.Amanda Atom (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Amanda Atom: I am unsure about your previous deletions, however I have nominated your latest article for deletion. Articles need to be simplified, and cannot be simply copied from the normal English Wikipedia. Take a look at our quick deletion criteria as well. If you want, I can move it to your namespace so you can simplify it. George Edward CTalkContributions 13:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@George.Edward.C: Yes please do that.Amanda Atom (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done, good luck! :) George Edward CTalkContributions 13:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that you could help me out with it. You don't have too, but help would be appreciated.Amanda Atom (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Why cant I use Twinkle?Amanda Atom (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you autoconfirmed? (When you go on Special:Preferences, does it say "Autoconfirmed users" under "Member of groups". George Edward CTalkContributions 14:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It says, "Users". But I've made more than 10 edits, and I've been here longer than 4 days.Amanda Atom (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My talk page is not the place for this conversation. If you put the question on WP: Simple talk you get the benefit of other user's technical knowledge. And if you want to talk to George, he does have his own talk page... Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing RfDs[change source]

Thanks for closing that RfD on Jose Rafael Cordero Sánchez. I don't know what happened when you edited the RfD page, but I had to fix it to make it come out right. The top archive template and your closing reason were farther down the page than they're supposed to be, and there was still text at the top saying that the outcome wasn't decided yet. Were you maybe editing a section instead of the whole page? When you're ready to do a close, if you click on the "close request" link, it will invoke edit on the entire page. I think Osiris added that link a while back because we used to have this kind of problem before. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I hadn't noticed the "close request". Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)