User talk:Ottawahitech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sunset at Huntington Beach.jpg

long is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Welcome[change source]

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

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

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! Osiris (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You are most sincerely welcome to be bold and contribute, but your additions need to meet our criteria for inclusion. You should first ask yourself whether you'd expect to find the article in a factual reference work. As the guideline says: "We do have rules, but the best way to learn them is to start writing and talk to other Wikipedians." Meaning that the quickest way to learn about writing an encyclopaedia is to make a start and learn from first-hand experience. Osiris (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RfD nomination of If the United States goes over the Fiscal cliff[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of If the United States goes over the Fiscal cliff, 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/2012/If the United States goes over the Fiscal cliff 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. Osiris (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2017[change source]

Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Turkish Nobel Prize winners. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ottawahitech! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Related pages" instead of English Wikipedia's "See also". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Related pages" in articles in the future. Thank you for your help! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Women's history month[change source]

I have deleted your article at Women's History Month because it is too complex for Simple English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia for information about how to bring content from another Wikipedia to here. Only (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Thanks for explaining. I already wrote another (simplified) version of this article before seeing this message on my talk-page. I will try to read Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia as soon as I can. Thank you. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: I just read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#QD A3 (the rationale used for deleting my previous version of this article) and I see that I should have added template:simplifying to the text. I did not know that. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan[change source]

Hi Ottawahitech

Just look at the article on the English Wikipedia: en:Venkatraman Ramakrishnan.

Wwikix (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Wwikix. I tried to find the source on the English wikipedia, but I cannot find it. Can you help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
According to the article on the English Wikipedia he is working in the fields of biochemistry and biophysics (see the template). A lot of sources of his scientific activities have been given in the article. Wwikix (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wwikix, Yes I know the en.wikipeida has tons of refs. Thanks for trying to help to locate the specific source neccessary to show that Venkatraman Ramakrishnan is a American-British biophysicist. I have placed a Reference necessary template on this article to remind us we need to find a specific ref.

Category:Austrian Nobel Prize winners[change source]

@ Wwikix, Also, I noticed that you have removed {{Catmore|Austrian people|Nobel Prize}} from Category:Austrian Nobel Prize winners, and was wondering why you removed it. Since Nobel Prize winners can be organizations which should not be included in this category, I believe the template was neccessary to impart this to future editors working to categorize Austrian Nobel Prize winners. Do you disagree?

Thanks again for your help Ottawahitech (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the (adapted) template. Wwikix (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Continued addition of unreferenced material[change source]

@Wwikix: Do you think it is a good idea to continue adding unrefereced material to articles as you did in Charles Pedersen? If so, why? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the reference mentioned in the article not sufficient? Wwikix (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Wwikix: The one reference available in the article does not support most of your changes. For example: . Ottawahitech (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I added a reference. Wwikix (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the reference you added supports your change. Please elaborate. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I also noticed that when you added unreferenced material to the article you removed the inline citation that I had used to build the article originally. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[change source]

Information.svg We like and strongly encourage helpful changes to Wikipedia, but "Predictions of Wikipedia's end" was directly copied and pasted from the main English Wikipedia. Please do not do that. Such articles are usually too complex. They need to be simplified before or immediately after being added to the Simple English Wikipedia. In addition, be sure to include attribution on the article's talk page. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. It is difficult to find a balance between adding content and also keeping up with talk.
Anyway, your message above seems to imply that I did not attribute Predictions of Wikipedia's end to it's source. Is that so? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
That part of the message is just a reminder. You did attribute that article. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Auntof6. Would you be kind enough to userify Predictions of Wikipedia's end so that I may work on it in my spare time? No hurry. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Article is now at User:Ottawahitech/Predictions of Wikipedia's end, and talk page is attached. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your changes to Wikipedia:Administrators[change source]

I reverted your changes to Wikipedia:Administrators because it wasn't all accurate, and because some of it is subject to change and there should be consensus before changing this kind of Wikipedia-space page.

The part that was inaccurate was about community bans. A community ban is an indefinite block that has been imposed as a result of a community discussion. It has nothing to do with an admin being unwilling to unblock. A community ban can be lifted only as a result of another community discussion. Another type of ban, a topic ban, can be imposed by an admin without community discussion.

Detail about blocks and bans is actually better at Wikipedia:Blocks and bans anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Did I do something wrong? I am asking because I thought the convention was to discuss such reverts on the article's talk page. See:Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Blocking_users:_Is_the_section_out_of_date? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:University of Waterloo[change source]

Hi, Ottawahitech. Thanks for your work here. Just so you know, I removed several entries from this category:

  • Your user page, because content categories don't go on user pages.
  • David Johnston, because nothing in the article indicated his connection to the university
  • One instruction set computer, because although the university was mentioned, there isn't enough of a connection to include the category.

This left the category with only two entries, but I found some more to put into it. If you have any questions, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Nanjing[change source]

Hi, Ottawahitech. Thanks for creating this category. When you create a content category, please put at least three entries in it right away. When I saw the category, it had only one entry. I think I have put everything in it that can go there now, but please populate categories yourself when you create them. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Using the {{cat main}} template[change source]

Hi, Ottawahitech. I noticed that you put the {{cat main}} template on several categories that you created. For example, on Category:Lakes of China you included this:

{{cat main| Lakes | china}}

When you use this template, the articles included should be more or less the equivalent in scope of the category itself. You don't pick the individual words in the category name and include those articles: those usually aren't close enough in meaning to be the main article for the category. One clue is this: if the article wouldn't belong in the category, there's a good chance that it shouldn't be listed as a main article.

Because of this, I've removed several of the {{cat main}} templates you included. It's OK for a category not to have that template. When you create categories, please keep all this in mind. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Auntof6: Thanks for clarifying, I had no idea why you were removing all my insertions of this template. Let me think about it for awhile, is this documented somewhere? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's explained in the template documentation on enwiki, at en:Template:Cat main/doc, but for some reason the template doc page here doesn't have that text. We should probably update the doc page here. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Auntof6: I see what you saying, I think: When 2 or more parameters are used in the above template they are used to define categories that are unions of groups of articles, but not for intersections. Which template is used for intersections here? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) updated on 04:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If you're asking how you would link to the article about China and the article about lakes here, I'd say that you wouldn't do that at all. I just added {{cat main}} to Category:Presidents of the United States as an example of when you'd have more than one article. Someone looking at that category might be looking for information on the office in general, or for information about the people who have held the office, so you can include an article about both. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Normally, the scope of a category is defined by the category name, how that category itself is categorized, and a little bit by knowledge of category naming conventions. In the category you mention, the name tells you that it's for rivers in a place called Jharkhand (because "rivers of <place>" is the naming convention -- I don't know why of is used instead of in for geographical features). The category is categorized in Category:Rivers of India and Category:Jharkhand: the second one doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know from this category's name, but the first one tells you that Jharkhand is a place in India. If a reader wants to know more about Jharkhand, they can go to that category. That's similar to the way internal links are used in articles: articles don't explain every term they link to, because if a reader wants to know more about a term linked in an article, they can click on the link to go to the article.

Anyway, I prefer to see text on categories kept to a minimum, so I don't think this category needs any further explanation. If you want to see an example of one that does, look at Category:Churches. That needs explanation because people commonly refer to a religious denomination as "the church", which can be confused with churches as buildings. (Maybe we should rename Category:Churches to match the enwiki name, but I digress.)

Do you have any other examples of categories that you think might need some explanatory text at the top? There are different ways of formatting it, some of which use templates and some of which don't. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I also like to see text on categories kept to a minimum. For example Category:Transport in London contains text that almost obscures the categories themselves. But isn’t this the reason we have category definition templates? BTW, shouldn’t this discussion be taking place in a more public place, such as Wikipedia talk:Categories? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
If we were talking about changes to policy or practice or something like that, then the discussion should be publicized. I didn't think we were discussing anything like that: I thought I was just answering questions after asking you not to use the {{cat main}} template the way you had been. And what category definition templates are you referring to? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Here is another example of a category that obviously needs an explanatory text/link: Category:Deaths from cancer of unknown primary origin, but IMIO all categories should have a definition. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That one might need something, since "Cancer of unknown primary origin" isn't a simple term. However, I'd oppose a routine practice of adding descriptions to all categories. Many such descriptions would just be restating the category name. If a description were much more than that, we'd risk having encyclopedic text that belongs in articles, not on categories. I'm not saying no categories should have descriptions, but IMO the percentage should be small. However, that's just my opinion and you're welcome to start a wider discussion if you want it to be a general practice. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Category:Universities[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Universities, 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/Category:Universities 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. Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)