User talk:Msannakoval

Welcome

Hello, Msannakoval, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes.

You may want to begin by reading these pages:

• Help
• Rules
• Links to useful pages
• How to write Simple English pages
• How to copy from another Wikipedia

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested pages or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes).

If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.

Good luck and happy changing! User:Rus793 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles should be in our style

The article "satisfaction" is not in the right style for us. We are a different wiki, and we do not have direct links to English wiki. We have our own version of wiktionary, and you arrange references like this: version. Check in the "change source", to see the format, not the visual editor. The second thing is, if a word is in our list of simple words (Basic English 1500 words), do not link it unless it is used in an unusual sense. So why not make those changes to the page. There are some other things, which can wait for the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Macdonald-ross,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write to me and teach me how to write better Simple English Wikipedia articles. I am very grateful to you for that. I am trying hard and I really do want to learn and improve.

I do know about Simple English Wiktionary and was trying to link to it. For some reason, I was unable to do so. I noted this on the article's talk page here: Talk:Satisfaction#Interwiki links to Wiktionary not working. The interwiki links are working for me again now, thankfully, and I have just wikified those terms in the satisfaction article. I hope I have done so correctly. I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages as well as the example you have shown me here. I believe I input the code correctly. Please confirm.

As for your second point, let me make sure that I understand. You said, "if a word is in our list of simple words (Basic English 1500 words), do not link it unless it is used in an unusual sense." Does that mean that I should not link to a word from BE 850 or BE 1500 unless it is used unusually? For example, I should not link to the word "satisfaction" or "satisfied" in the satisfaction article, correct? I actually don't see how I have done that at all in the article, except for in the lead, where I linked to the Simple English Wiktionary entry. Is that what you meant? If so, I will unlink it. It would be helpful, though, to be able to read more about when it is ok to link to Wiktionary entries here on Simple English Wikipedia and when it is not ok. Is there a policy you can point me to, please?

Thank you for not wanting to overwhelm me with corrections. I am ready for more now, though. If you have the time and the inclination to show me more of my mistakes and how to fix them, I will be happy to correct them.

Again, thank you, Macdonald-ross, for being kind to me and patient with me. I am more thankful to you than you know.

Sincerely yours, Msannakoval (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, I think your formatting of the wikt entries is correct. I am going to look again at the Satisfaction article tomorrow morning when my mind is a bit fresher. Sometimes the distinction between a dictionary definition and an article is very clear. Sometimes it is not. We have to see that the article stands up as an article, rather than a drawn-out definition. Anyway, the general format of the article is now much better. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Satisfaction

An editor has requested deletion of Satisfaction, 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 his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Satisfaction 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. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Satisfaction

Just to help explain the some of the problems with the article, the words linked to wiktionary should be interwiki links, not external links (urls). External links should not be used in the body of an article. An example is the word 'dictionary'. To link it to the definition of the word in Simple Wiktionary, the code is: [[wikt:dictionary|dictionary]]. You can also use the short form: [[wikt:dictionary|]]. For example, in a sentence in an article it would look like:

"Oddly enough, the word dictionary is not a Basic English word."

Note how 'Basic English' has a normal internal link (also called a wikilink) to the article. The basics are explained in the Welcome message link above to 'How to write Simple English pages'. More information on linking can be found in Wikipedia:Links to other websites. Also, as pointed out in the RfD discussion, the term 'Satisfaction' is called a dicdef (short for dictionary definition). It is more about the word than the subject, even though you made a good effort into attempting to expand it into an article. You can get a better sense of this by reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions just ask or post to Wikipedia:Simple talk. BTW, most editors here have had an article rejected for one reason or another. It's part of the learning process. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Rus793,

Thank you for welcoming me to Simple English Wikipedia. And thank you for helping me to become a better writer for the project. I am humble and here in good faith and really do want to learn and improve. I am grateful to you for teaching me these valuable lessons.

I do know about wikilinking. And I was trying to do that. You can see from the article history that my interlanguage interwiki links worked fine. However, for some reason, the Wiktionary wikilinks were not working for me. I noted this on the article's talk page here: Talk:Satisfaction#Interwiki links to Wiktionary not working. The Wiktionary interwiki links are working for me again now, thankfully, and I have wikified those terms in the satisfaction article. I hope I have done so correctly. I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages as well as the examples that you and Macdonald-ross showed me here. I believe I input the code correctly. Please confirm.

Thank you for telling me about dicdefs (dictionary definitions). I was not familiar with that term. Are you saying that the satisfaction article reads like one? Are you saying that the article should read less like a dictionary definition and more like an encyclopedia article? I have reviewed WP:NOT#What Wikipedia entries are not, in particular #2-5 and #17, which pertain to dictionaries. I'm not clear on what part of this policy the satisfaction article is being likened to: #2. a dictionary, #3. a list of definitions, #4. a usage guide, #5. a slang or idiom guide, or #17. a genealogical or biographical dictionary. Please clarify.

I will reply to concerns about What Wikipedia is not in the RfD discussion.

I appreciate you helping me to have a better understanding of what was done wrong here. And I understand that this is part of the learning process.

Sincerely yours, Msannakoval (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Msannakoval,

I apologize in advance for mentioning anything you are already familiar with. Obviously you've edited before. In an RfD a period of seven days is usually given in which to reach a consensus. During that time, the article may be improved to address any concerns that were raised. Often, an editor or editors may change their comment to reflect any positive changes. It's a good process. It helps eliminate articles that are not encyclopedia and helps those with article potential become even better. I can't explain why Wiktionary links would not work but in any case an external link shouldn’t be substituted. I see now they're gone now and that was one of my concerns. The 'How to write Simple English pages' is a general guide and typically gets a new user or enwiki editor off to a good start here. It doesn’t cover every aspect of editing articles, that is gained by experience and working with other editors. The subject of an article being a dicdef is sometimes a judgement call. A key sentence from Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is: "Almost all encyclopedia articles have a "noun" for a subject; it is usually not easy to expand an article about a verb or an adjective into much more than a dictionary definition." Some subjects are clear-cut examples of a word that belongs more in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Other subjects have article potential. The subject here—satisfaction—is a tougher call. On the surface, it appears to be a dicdef. But it is a noun. Not all nouns deserve articles either but, based on what you compiled, a good case could be made that "Satisfaction" deserves an article.

The problem I cited is that, IMO, it read like an essay (What Wikipedia is not #9. Personal essays). Other editors will give their opinions. One thing that would help is to eliminate the second person pronouns. For example, there are at least 20 instances of the use of the word "you" as in "You feel satisfied by accomplishment, recognition, invention and service." Our Manual of Style, under Avoid second-person pronouns says to avoid the use of the word "you" in sentences as it is non-encyclopedic. If these sentences are edited and rephrased (see the MOS link for suggestions), it would better comply with the MOS and (I think) read more like an encyclopedic article. The issue of synthesis could be addressed by rechecking sources to insure the source is verifying the statement in the article and not, for example, a word or part of the statement. Since you are responding so positively to improving the article, I'll go back over the sources again and see if I can help. Keep in mind whatever the outcome of the RfD, your contributions are welcome here. Keep up your good efforts. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I edited some of the second person pronouns as an example. I changed 'he' to 'he or she' in one instance. You could also use gender-neutral plurals such as 'they'. I also removed the link from title word per the MOS. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Rus793. :) I have changed the "he/she" pronouns to gender-neutral "they" as per your wise counsel. I am very very happy to have your help and to be learning from a master editor. :) Thank you for teaching me. :) Msannakoval (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Just an editor, but thanks. I did eliminate some of the instances of "you" but there are some remaining. I'll look at the citations to see what it was I saw earlier and help out there too if I can. Overall they look good. Watch the RfD and see if other editors have any comments you might use to improve the article. Many of our best and most active editors participate there. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple more things worth mentioning that are different from enwiki. We link a word only once in an article. The exception being in the section you labeled 'See also' (now 'Related pages'). At this wiki a section with links to other (simplewiki) articles is usually titled 'Related pages' and comes before 'References'. A section containing external links to outside pages is labeled 'Other websites' and is usually placed after the 'References' section. This is found in the guideline Wikipedia:Guide to layout. I also made a change to the layout. The lead was long and the other sections short, so I created another section. It could probably be better titled but see what you think. If you disagree, then change it back. It was just a thought. Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Rus793, I have lots more to thank you for! :)

First: Your edits to the article. That's the best way to learn. You're not just telling me, you're showing me. And it's working. Thanks.

Second: {{od}}. I'd always wondered how/why to do that. In this context, I get it. Thanks.

Third: The new section. Shortening the long lead and starting a new section ("Satisfaction as an emotion") makes a lot of sense. I'm glad you thought of it and did it.

Fourth: Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Great link. I didn't know that one. Very helpful to know the proper order of sections. Question: Should the "related pages" section only link (or redlink, if no page exists+) to Simple English Wikipedia Articles? Meaning, no links to English Wikipedia articles, no links to Simple/English Witktionary articles? I may have linked to English Wikipedia articles, if no Simple ones existed, for terms that seemed essential to knowing more about the concept.

+Question: Are there criteria here on Simple English Wikipedia for what articles the wiki should have, and which ones we should not bother to write, even if other language Wikipedias have them?

There's more, I'm sure, to thank you for, but I've got limited time to contribute to the project and I want to try to write another article this weekend after all I've learned this week. For now, please know that I am eternally grateful to you, User:Rus793. I dare say I feel like I've make a new friend here on Simple Wikipedia. But if that's going to far, it's safe to say that you've make a huge new fan. <3 Take care, and see you on wiki. :) All the best, Msannakoval (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Msannakoval, You asked should related pages only link to other simplewiki articles. As far as I know that’s the general idea. The enwiki articles are usually too complex for our readers. Although I haven't done it myself, links to simple Wiktionary should be fine too. If no simplewiki article exists to link to then use the title of the corresponding enwiki article and create a red link (simplewiki article titles follow enwiki titles most of the time). After creating an article or making a substantial edit to one, I try to come back and create some of the support articles (at least as decent stubs) that I created red links for earlier. As for criteria for what articles we should have, one list is: Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have. Note the link to ‘Vital articles – expanded’ in the lead section for the expanded list. As for articles not to bother to write, that’s basically what the QD and RfD deletion process is all about. Best advice is to watch the (category) 'Current requests for deletion' and read the links to current RfDs under discussion. You can also participate. The discussion tells you many things about policy, who the major contributors here are, and what not to do. Another page to watch is Wikipedia:Simple talk. You can learn a lot from both. More so than at enwiki, articles here are subject to Wikipedia:Notability criteria. If a subject is not notable it generally doesn't deserve an article. Even if a sister project has an article, that doesn't automatically mean we should also. We often do, but we have our own guidelines and policies to follow. Another guideline in determining whether an article should be here is Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not. Lastly you’ll make mistakes and be corrected for them by other editors from time to time. It’s part of the process. This is a small wiki. Even when it doesn't sound like it, most of the editors here are friendly and want to see you succeed. Even though I don’t ‘hang out’ with all of them, I consider them (and you) friends. We’re here doing the same work and there’s very little of the negative interactions you find… let’s just say the wiki you and I came here from. We're building an encyclopedia that has easy to read articles and there's a lot of work left to be done. Take care and have fun editing here User:Rus793 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Rus793,

Thank you for this. It helps a lot.

Re: Enwiki article links: A comment about this was made on the article's talk page, and I responded to this there, too. This was a really valuable lesson for me as a new editor. Seeing the redlinks as an indication that the article is too difficult for readers to understand was a clever hack. I've made those edits and will work on starting stubs. I have already made my first one: Pleasure. I hope it is ok for now; if not, please tell me why.

Re: Redlinking simplewiki articles and coming back and starting stubs. That's a very helpful suggestion and kind of answers my question about what to write next! :) I have a question about that, though. What, in your mind, constitutes a "decent stub"? Can you please point me to some examples? Since you said that this is something you have done before, I searched through your contribs as far back as November 2014, but could not find a new stub article that you had created. So, in the meantime, I modeled Pleasure on Sadness. Are either or both of these decent stubs?

Re: Simplewiki content criteria: I've bookmarked WP:VITAL and WP:VAE. Thanks. And thanks for the idea to study the criteria at WP:DELETE and follow the current nominations. It's as helpful to see examples of what not to write as what to write. (Thanks for the invitation to participate in those discussions. It may be a while before I do, though, since I'm new to the project and still feel somewhat sensitive/anxious after my own experience with RfD, to be honest.)

Re: Corrections from other editors. It happened already. And, at the risk sounding like a new editor lecturing an experienced editor, I gave some feedback to the commenter about WP:Etiquette. If I'm going to grow as a contributor here, I hope I continue to receive instruction from other editors. It'd be nice if it were nice. :) But even if it's not, even if the tone is terse, I'll keep your advice here in mind.

I'm really happy to hear that the community here at simplewiki is a good one and that negative interactions are not the norm. Helping out here feels good just because, but it feels even better if you trust and like those you're helping out with. I'm honored that you said you consider them (and me) friends. :) We're a tribe of sorts here. And, according to Dan Buettner's new book about "Blue Zones" (or longevity hotspots), people are happier and healthier and live longer when they're engaged in positive social groups. (See: Parade magazine, April 2, 2015"Cheater's Guide to Living to 100" (PDF). Retrieved 6 April 2015.) That's why I picked Simple.

I really do want to help improve and grow this project, and I absolutely love your last line above: "We're building an encyclopedia that has easy to read articles and there's a lot of work left to be done. Take care and have fun editing here." I've made that my talk page tag line (with proper attribution, of course). :)

All the best to you, User:Rus793. Msannakoval (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Red links (or redlinks) are not necessarily an indication a page is too difficult. Red links are simply links to articles that haven't been created yet. We link woto words that are not on the Basic 850 list. An article can have red links, just not too many red links. What constitutes too many red links is more or less a matter of experience and/or opinion. Here are some examples of stubs: Cannon Ball (roller coaster), Golden Mountains of Altai, Linear city model, Bacillus (shape) and Bithynia. A stub should be a good start towards becoming an article. It has links, categories, is usually shorter than 1500 characters and ideally has source citations. It has enough information to very basically explain the subject. I did see the comments on the talk page yesterday and your comments today. You'll find some users have a direct style; it doesn't mean anything. I can sometimes be direct myself. Also, the code you used in the article (using the shortcut 'w') is the same I've seen vandals use. At any rate, I have to consider AGF begins with me. I can look at something written to me that may appear brisk or too direct, but I don't have to take it that way. Assuming good faith is an individual guideline that's tricky when used to remind someone else they need to follow AGF. Because by doing so, perhaps I wasn't following the guideline so well myself. It's a catch-22 situation that I've been caught in before. I've been a wikipedian for a few years on three projects—I still get corrected and rightly so. I make mistakes now and then; I overlook some detail or other and sometimes forget to be as friendly as I actually am. It happens. I get reminded of things now and then and the reminder isn't always as cordial as a love letter. No problem. I just go right back to work a little wiser—usually. Anyway, there is a learning curve to simplewiki, perhaps more so for experienced editors from other wikis. Just do the best you can and learn as you go. Take vandalism with a grain of salt and be patient with other editors. You'll be just fine. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Case in point, Satisfaction was just recently tagged complex. It’s one of the other things we hadn't got to yet but any time there is the word ‘and’ or a similar conjunction in a sentence, it’s a good candidate to be broken into two or more simple sentences. Keep in mind the tag is on the article and not the originator (in this case you). A simple sentences should express one idea. Sometimes editors try to get too much information in a single sentence (or too much information in the article). We all do that from time to time. Younger readers and in some cases readers new to the English language (our target audience) have short attention spans. We need to write for this audience. Not every sentence in an article has to be simple, sometimes a complex sentence is unavoidable. But the idea is to try to keep the sentences simple whenever possible and still keep it interesting to read. No pressure but an average reader takes only a few seconds to decide if an article is worth reading. So writing simple articles is more challenging. BTW, if you edit the article, once you think the article is sufficiently simplified, you (or any editor) can remove the tag. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Rus793,

Thank you so much for this reply. I saw the {{complex}} template. But, truthfully, it didn't intimidate me -- because being "complex" is much better than being "RfD"! :)

It was so nice of you to say that an article's tag is speaks for its content, not its creators. That statement was very reassuring and I appreciated it a lot.

I want you to know that I do feel honor bound to try to improve that article.

I should have begun where you suggested: with just simplifying the language.

Instead, I thought I'd start with trying to make some of the redlinks blue, since we'd discussed that, too. And that's when I fell down the rabbit hole...

The redlink I picked was Anguish. I drafted it in my sandbox: User:Msannakoval/Sandbox#Article:Anguish. Even though I've had the article written for 5 days now, and have been working on it for 2 weeks, I held back on moving it into the article namespace, because I'm afraid of failing again. I don't want to make the same mistakes twice!

I've requested help with the {{helpme}} template, as the instructions in your welcome message here on my talk page said I should do. :) If you could take a look too, it would mean a lot to me.

Next time I login, it will be to {{simplify}} as you suggest. I had no idea where were "complex" Simple Wikipedia articles. What I write should not add to that backlog list. I'm capable of doing better, and I will.

Thank you again, User:Rus793. I hope this finds you well. Msannakoval (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of a draft article in my sandbox

{{helpme}}

Hello Helpers,

This is my first time using {{helpme}}. I searched the help namespace in various ways but didn't find an answer.

I was wondering if it is possible to have a peer review an article that I've drafted in my sandbox: User:Msannakoval/Sandbox#Article:Anguish.

The title is Anguish. I believe it fits in Category:Emotion and possibly Category:Philosophy (that's one of the categories on English Wikipedia).

There are 6 other versions of this article, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, and Guarani. The English version has no subsections and no citations. I made sure to correct that for Simple. The draft has 35 citations and 8 subsections. I'm actually wondering if it might be too long, but some of the very good articles are even longer.

Any advice on how to improve this draft would be welcome, in particular how to know when it's generally ok to move content from a sandbox to the article namespace.

Thank you so much, Msannakoval (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I just have a few suggestions. In the 'Causes of anguish' section, the issue of abuse might be simplified to just abuse. I realize that child abuse and adult abuse each have citations and the already small section would be smaller without their mention. In the 'Anguish in law' and 'Anguish in medicine' sections I'd suggest tightening it up to fewer paragraphs, perhaps one or two per section. This is minor but in 'Anguish in medicine' it reads a little choppy when you have three sentences in close proximity beginning with "people". That's easily fixed however. I'm sure you know to upgrade the bare url references to full source citations. However, there is a tool to do this, once Anguish is posted to articlespace. It is the refill tool. Once there, paste the article name into the first box and in the second box select "simple" for Simple English Wikipedia. I usually uncheck the box 'Do not add access dates', but that's up to you. Then click on 'Fix page'. It shows the proposed changes. Then click on 'Preview / Save on Wiki'. It will automatically add citation templates and leave you in 'change view' of the article. Even though you can add a cite web template yourself, the tool saves you time and will work on most bare urls (but not urls showing in a full source citation). One other thing, make sure you do not add categories while in userspace. Add the cats after you post the article. Auntof6 is the category guru I'd ask for anything regarding categories. I see you're using more simple sentences. To make an article less "choppy", however, you can vary the length of simple sentences. As you probably know, a simple sentence is not defined by its length. So you can use longer simple sentences interspersed with shorter ones to get a better flow. You can't do that everywhere in an article, but it helps where you can use it. Don't be afraid of red links when wikifying the article. We don't have anywhere near the articles enwiki has so subjects like personal injury will red link until we do get the article. I can't think of anything else at the moment that could help. Just remember an article is never truly finished and other editors will add improvements over time. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Rus793,

Thank you *so* much for this feedback. :)

The article is in article space now, with the improvements you recommended. And on the article's talk page, I asked User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] about the categories, as you suggested.

Thanks for the tip about about the categories. I used nowiki tags around the emotions category to avoid that. I didn't realize that the placeholder attribution templates for the article's talk page would automatically add categories too. The wiki sure is smart! Next time I'll put nowiki tags around those too.

I fixed the bare urls before I read this. I didn't know about the refill tool. That's cool. The uber-nerd and librarian in me feels like I should do it the old fashioned way -- that is, with the {{cite web}} template -- but I could make even more of a difference to this encyclopedia, if I did more faster. I don't mean cut corners! In this case, the end result would be the same. So why wouldn't I want to use an available tool to work smarter not harder? It could also be muscle memory. This was how I learned to do it. I'd have to re-learn the faster way. I feel the same way about the VisualEditor. I feel like I know how to do what I want to do faster with the wikitext. The refill tool's "generate a reference" feature (coming soon) did pique my interest. It's going to be very handy once it's enabled.

Generally, do you recommend always drafting in a sandbox, as it says at Help:How to change pages? Or if a stub meets the guidelines at Wikipedia:Stub#Improving stubs, is it ok to start it out in articlespace first?

Sincerely, Msannakoval (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Using your sandbox is more of a judgment call. Because simplewiki needs more editing, at least in wikifying and simplifying, it's probably best for editors new to this wiki use their sandbox. After that, it's a matter of experience, how much needs doing and how fast you work. Since you cite your sources, you know it can slow you down sometimes. Keep in mind, if you leave a page needing anything obvious for even a short period of time it is subject to tagging. Since a transwikied page does not exist here until you save it, in theory you have all the time you need editing it in article space. If you edit an existing article there are two tags you can use with Twinkle: {{in use}} or {{under construction}}. Either one should give you a short period of time to work on an article. Other editors will usually give you the courtesy of leaving the article alone while you work on it. BTW, the refill tool doesn't work on every bare url so you'll still have to edit some of them manually. The article looks good BTW. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions

I have some lingering questions about Simple English Wikipedia... Any insights (and citations) are appreciated. (I intend to ask this on the Simple Talk page, too.) Msannakoval (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Article length/word count

What is a good article length? Does this matter much? I saw some discussion in the archives, but nothing numeric. What are the guidelines for too short/too long/just right, etc.? Thank you. Msannakoval (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Article size/bytes

WP:VGA says that an article "should be several kilobytes long, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. However, this is not a strict rule." How many is too many? And does this guideline apply to all articles? Thank you. Msannakoval (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

BE 1500

BE 1500 links to Simple Wikipedia articles in some cases and to Simple Wiktionary entries in other cases. For example, "someone" links to a Simple Wiktionary definition and "something" links to an Simple Wikipedia article about a Beatles song. This could be confusing for a reader. Are there guidelines about what to link to in any case? Thank you. Msannakoval (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Job satisfaction

Nice article. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Rus793. :) I was just stopping by to find and copy a bit of wiki code that I learned from you once -- fwiw, it was {{od}} -- when I saw your nice note. It made my day. Thanks for thinking of me. And thanks for encouraging me. I just want you to know that I haven't given up on editing Simple English Wikipedia as a volunteer. My day job has just been keeping me extra busy these days, which, coincidentally, is good for job satisfaction. :) Take care, and see you again soon. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks for your involvement in the Big Reference Weekend 2016 Peterdownunder (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)