User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 17
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|← Archive 16||Archive 17||Archive 18 →|
- 1 NES Advantage
- 2 Please do not revert citations needed
- 3 11st My
- 4 Leo
- 5 cookies
- 6 Per User talk:188.8.131.52, regarding "BC" or "BCE"
- 7 Thank you
- 8 What did I do wrong?
- 9 Help creating a new article?
- 10 Can I offer you some ...
- 11 Advice
- 12 User Talk:184.108.40.206
- 13 Parachute
- 14 Erina
- 15 awards on your user page
- 16 Speedy deletion of Digital Combat Simulator
- 17 What's out-and-out vandalism?
- 18 Caryophyllaceae
- 19 questions about Blues in the Schools (BITS)
- 20 Quick Deletion of Priyanka Karki
- 21 can somebody please protect palm tree
- 22 List of Azerbaijani chess players
NES Advantage[change source]
- QD everything that can be QD'd because o/wise the queue for discussion gets too long. Anyway, this one did not claim. Will need closing, but I'm involved elsewhere at the minute. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not revert citations needed[change source]
The article did not changed, I pointed out where the article needed citations and removed necessary clarification and the biased undertone. None of the articles information was lost or changed. Bonaventurepedia (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
11st My[change source]
Dear Macdonald-ross, may i know why is the 11street Malaysia page deleted and is claimed as advertisement? Can you provide more guide (e.g. which section of the article falls into advertisement) so it will be written better for the second attempt? Thanks a lot.
- I can't really do that. All I can say is that the text read as if it was based on a source written by or for the company which built or owns the project. It may be a matter of time. Eventually, independent assessments of the value of a big building project may become available. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Macdonald-ross, oh no it is not based on any written source or for any companies for any projects. The company has been established since 2008 in Korea and now expanded to Malaysia so it is good to have a Wikipedia page for it. I will try to rewrite it better and resubmit to ensure it is not an advertisement article. Thanks.
- I've done Leo (disambiguation). It's only marginal here, because we have far fewer pages than English wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
|Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!|
Per User talk:220.127.116.11, regarding "BC" or "BCE"[change source]
Thank you[change source]
What did I do wrong?[change source]
I don't understand what I did wrong. Why was it wrong for me to create a page about the homosexual suicide epidemic? Why did you delete my page by yourself? Why did you call it a hoax and propaganda? Why did you delete it so quickly? Are you saying there really is no homosexual suicide epidemic? Thanks for your detailed explanation of your emotions on this. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I realize the word "epidemic" makes it sound like something negative or undesirable", would "homosexual suicide phenomenon" be more apt? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Proving that this is an epidemic is probably harder than proving it is a phenomenon. (2) As Mac said, "only if you can prove it exists with reliable, independent sources. I'd venture that at least one source is going to have to be one not specifically targeted to the homosexual community. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr Madonald-ross, your response does not even begin to address the reasons for your summarily deleting the page within 3 minutes of my creating it, calling it a "hoax" and "propaganda". Indeed that response reminds me of the denialism of Hitler who said it was a "hoax" and "propaganda" that the Russians were rolling into Berlin. Are you homosexual yourself? Apparently you did not obtain your position of responsibility by displaying any sense, it looks to me more like some sort of a (homo) sexual favor going on at Wikipedia. Congratulations! (Not) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) If you want to challenge the page being deleted, you can do so at WP:Deletion review. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Help creating a new article?[change source]
I saw you had deleted previous attempts to create This. Would "This, in the English language, is the singular proximal demonstrative." be a good (start) article.? It is the first sentence of en:This. I thought to make the article since Wikipedia:Basic English ordered wordlist does not have it as an article. Help, please? :) Stewi101015 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The page on enwiki is not an article: it is a disambiguation page ("dab page"). We don't appear to have any articles with this name that need disambiguating, so we don't really need it as a dab page, at least not right now. The content you give as a suggested article would be what we call a "dicdef" (dictionary definition), so it would not make a good article. Not everything in the word list would make a good article. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Should this on ´´´Wikipedia:Basic English ordered wordlist´´´ link to the Simple English Wiktionary with this? Stewi101015 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I offer you some ...[change source]
|Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!|
|Mmm - Milk!|
|A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!|
This user Richard Arthur Norton is just deleting articles because they are just "ordinary". That's not a legitimate reason though. I dont know what to do. I'm scared that this user is just going to delete all of the articles because of them being "ordinary". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @PokestarFan:I have undone your change. That user is currently blocked for 3 months, but that message was about an earlier block that was for 3 hours. The next time you see something like that, please ask the other person about it instead of changing it yourself. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
On your reverts on article Parachute: I am a skydiver and I know what I am writing about. I do not need any books to describe the basics of parachuting or the gear. The only copy-pastes were from a previous edit conflict.188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- We have our rules, and "I know I'm right" is not recognised as a proper source. The quantity of material copy-pasted is a hallmark of copy-vio, and if it is not, then you must establish where it came from with references which we can check. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- (change conflict) (talk page stalker) Even if you know what you're talking about, Wikipedia still requires references. When we write from what we know without references to reliable sources, Wikipedia calls that original research. By policy, original research is not allowed. That is not to say that what you wrote isn't valid. It is just that Wikipedia does not publish original work that is not referenced.
- As it happens, I have done one skydive myself! How often do you jump? I didn't continue because I didn't have enough interest in it to spend the time and money. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- The IP user's claim that the only copy-pastes were from a previous edit conflict fails because a quick Google search of phrases from the edits in question shows that the exact same material shows up in various other sources, some of which is quite old. See, for example, this patent app from 2007 and this wiki entry (which appears to be copying from yet another source). Also, some of the material appears in nearly identical form on EnWiki, although I didn't check the source of the material there to see who posted it. The IP user restored the material again after Macdonald-ross reverted it. I have reversed that change by the IP user and applied a 3rr warning to the IP user's talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 19:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross; It is spoken in northen pakistan by 2,500 speakers. There are more than 42 languages urdu is national language but only 4 languages have regional status these are Punjabi, Pashto, Balochi and sindhi other languages have no offical status. Even some languages are not recognize by registrar now please undo your revert i want to write more about this language Kratie222 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Edits which are open to challenge may be defended by showing reliable sources. Editors are not reliable sources, and "I know I'm right" is not acceptable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
awards on your user page[change source]
hey user, i'm new in Wikipedia, I see your user page and looks interesting. I see many awards how did you do that? How can I get awards?
Speedy deletion of Digital Combat Simulator[change source]
How was it advertising? It certainly didn't look like advertising and it doesn't read like advertising. You can see how it was here. It reads essentially the same as the English one. I sincerely doubt the authenticity of your deletion. The deletion policy states "Pages which were created only to say good things about a company, item, group or service and which would need to be written again so that they can be encyclopedic. However, simply having a company, item, group or service as its subject does not mean that an article can be deleted because of this rule: an article that is obvious advertising should have content that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia." Not once does it say something like "you should buy this amazing product", "this game is good", or anything akin to that. It says the information about what the game is, what you can do in it, and current events related to the game. It certainly isn't "obvious advertising" as it isn't advertising at all. Here's the english page for reference:  HarryKernow (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
What's out-and-out vandalism?[change source]
- It was truly vandalism. Tropicalkitty (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is this whole thing on the internet a out bow Taylor Swift died, and although it was just a hoax, they may actually think that. Krett12 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the protection from the above article due to possible issues with en:WP:INVOLVED and to avoid penalising other anonymous editors when only one IP is actually involved in the dispute. I have left another message on the IP's user talk page, in the meantime. If the anonymous editor persists in their content addition without trying to further discuss it, then a block for disruptive editing/3RR could be considered. Chenzw Talk 05:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
questions about Blues in the Schools (BITS)[change source]
Why did you delete my page? It is not an advertising page, it is an informational page.
- It had no independent sources
- There was no balanced assessment
- In effect it was an advertisement
- The whole style of the page suggested that you are an interested party. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Quick Deletion of Priyanka Karki[change source]
Hi there, I found you deleted my page Priyanka Karki. Reason given "(QD A3: Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion: and social sites are not evidence of notability)" probably, you were correct in quick deletion, based on the article’s content. However, improving such an article is another option. Wikipedia:BOLD tells editors to go for it, be bold. One aspect of that is if you see something that needs doing (and you can), do it. If an article needs improving (and you can), go ahead and improve it. It is a responsibility of editors to do what they can to help. But it is up to the individual editor to determine if he or she has the capability, the time and/or resources to improve an article. So you were right to delete this article, but I just wanted you to undelete the article. We try to consider what is best for the readers. Also, I just wanted to have some existence of Nepali biographies articles here on simple wikipedia. Thank you Kaulder (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Auntof6 may can delete the article but he/she not deleted the article. He/she done minor changes in it and i loved seeing that and thanked him/her. You can see in the history of the page. I would request you to please restore the article. Kind regards, Kaulder (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Kaulder: The changes I made to the article were minor. They were not meant to make the article perfect. Also, if you are saying that Mac should have fixed the article because of the Wikipedia:BOLD guideline, then I think you are misinterpreting that guideline: it means that if you see something that needs doing and you want to fix it, then go ahead. It does not say that editors should/must fix everything they see. Most editors, including admins, have their own things that they want to do with the time they spend here. If you would like this article restored to your userspace for you to work on, that can be done. You might even be able to get someone to help you work on it there, but it is up to the other editors to say whether they have time to help. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
can somebody please protect palm tree[change source]
- Yes, I've done so (three different users repeated vandalism). Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
List of Azerbaijani chess players[change source]
I thought the edition I made was simplified enough for readers to understand. I edited it and added simple sentences and also added internal links to existings articles, so it was not a direct copy of the English Wikipedia article of the same name which lacks an introductory paragraph. How can I further simplify it, so it can become acceptable and can stay. I really want to know.
This was the introduction I used in the erased article of the same name in Simple Wikipedia:
The highest award is the title of Grandmaster (GM), followed by the title International Master (IM). These titles are given to both men and women.
There are also titles only for women chess players. The highest award is the title of Women Grandmaster (GM), followed by the title Woman International Master (WIM).
I also changed the titles for the sections by using "Related pages" instead of "See also" and "Other websites" instead of "External links", as they are the norm in Simple Wikipedia.
The "Related pages" and the categories were also not direct copies either.
I would like to have further help on this.
- The pre-set reasons are summaries, and they are mainly phrased for written articles. Your list is far too long for this wiki, and has far too few linked entries. To have some red links is helpful, but to have hundreds looks silly, because we only have articles on the world's strongest players. A list page has to make sense in our context, listing players of world class (we had earlier discussions about chess, and decided we would only list the strongest players). Always remember that if readers want more detail they can go to English wiki, where the list makes more sense. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)