User talk:Ottawahitech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

For more information, see Austrian people and Nobel Prize.
I replaced the (adapted) template. Wwikix (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is the reference mentioned in the article not sufficient? Wwikix (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wwikix: The one reference available in the article does not support most of your changes. For example: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Pedersen&diff=next&oldid=5915510 . Ottawahitech (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference. Wwikix (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the reference you added supports your change. Please elaborate. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

November 2017[change source]

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)[reply]

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 em.wiki source. Is that so? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That part of the message is just a reminder. You did attribute that article. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Question[change source]

Why are you adding redlinks to an article? --Jollyeditor (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi --Jollyeditor, Why are you asking? Are redlinks discouraged here? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Redlinks are acceptable here, even encouraged in order to draw attention to articles that we don't have. In addition, links should not be removed just because they are red (not saying anyone is currently doing thst, just that I've seen it before). --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Speculation tax[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Speculation tax, 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/2019/Speculation tax 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. Eptalon (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

affordable housing page[change source]

Can you help me with this? I think this article is too complex to write the remainder of words.

Angela Maureen (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropical Storm Angela: Thanks for starting and supplying the reference for this much needed page. If you would like to discuss it we can do it at: Talk:Affordable_housing. Please ping me if you want to me to see it when I am on. Thanks.Ottawahitech (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropical Storm Angela: I found an obsecure news release at the UCLA web site:
https://law.ucla.edu/news-and-events/in-the-news/2019/06/ucla-law-clinic-issues-groundbreaking-housing-crisis-report/
Do you think we should use it to develop the article? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Daniel J. Evans[change source]

Hi there! I noticed you reverted my edit on Daniel J. Evans, leaving the edit summary as it normally is. I just wanted to let you know that my edit was by no means vandalism: instead simply an accidental slip while removing unnamed parameters from the marriage template in the infobox. If you didn't realise this then no worries and you did everything fine, but if you didn't think it was vandalism (as suggested by the lack of warning on my talk page!) then it's normally good practice to change the edit summary to indicate that, as the edit summary you used is for reverting edits made in bad faith. Thanks so much and sorry to bother you, Milo, Talk, Contribs 19:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I usually use the edit summary to explain my edits. I had no idea that when I undo someone's edit without adding a summary it appears as if I believe the reverted edit was vandalism.
The reason I left the summary blank was that I had no idea what caused what appeared to be a glitch. But since my primary concern is to maintain the integrity of the pages, I decided to go ahead and make the edit. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah don't worry: at least for me when I click undo it says "If this change isn't vandalism please change the edit summary", but perhaps it doesn't for you or you missed it or something! Either way its all fixed now so all fine! Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 15:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for continuing to educate me. I guess what you are saying is that the default edit summary can be changed by me. I'll have to research how to do this. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[change source]

Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Tennessee State University. 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) 12:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Thanks for stopping by to remind me of the rules regarding the creation of categories on Simple. Just to clarify: I first created Category:Tennessee State University and added people to it. There were more than 3 entries in this category at that point. However, I then proceeded to create Category:People of Tennessee State University, and moved people articles into it. At this point Category:Tennessee State University only had 2 entries in it: one for the university itself and another for the new subcategory which I created. Should I have not created the sub-cateory? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to have the subcategory. We can just leave the popcat tag on the university category for a while to see if it gets any more entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion on this, what you probably should have done was just leave the people in the parent category and not created the subcategory. Just because you can create a new category, doesn't mean you should create a new subcategory. My personal recommendation is that a parent category doesn't need to be broken down until you have more than 1 page worth of articles in it (ie 100+ articles). Remember, goal here is as few categories as possible here that will still organize our articles. That being said, there are cases where creating subcategories before that number still makes sense, ie when its a series of categories like "X by country". Just because en.wiki has a category doesn't mean we too need that category. That being said now that it is created what Auntof6 said makes sense. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was wondering if I should have created the people-cat without creating the university-cat at all? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists by state or province[change source]

Could you put a note on this category explaining what should be in it? Looking at the current content, it's not clear because there seems to be at least two different kinds of categories in it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I need not worry about a note since someone emptied the category I just created, sigh……… Ottawahitech (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was over-categorization, they were already in more specific list categories. I think I need to remind you to go easy on creating categories. To be honest probably should go easy on creating anything new. Not sure if you are aware or not but technically since you have been blocked on en.wiki WP:ONESTRIKE is applicable to you. And things like creating bad articles/categories like you did on en.wiki will trigger a block without warning. I would hate to see that happen but there have been quite a few creations of yours that are similar to the issues you had on en.wiki so you could probably already be blocked for it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Djsasso, No I was not aware that my contributions here are not welcome, and I am surprised to see you have appointed yourself judge and jury and deleted work created by others without discussion. You and I go back a long ways, but I always thought we were on, maybe not friendly, but collegial, terms. I am surprised at your posting here which indicates otherwise.
Having said this, I have no interest in starting any drama, or in being kicked off here by admins. I do recognize that being an admin is hard work, and that admins are human. I enjoy contributing here and can probably continue enjoying it under some restrictions. You said I should not create any new articles or categories. Thats fine with me, even if I regularly come across missing information that I believe can benefit others. Are there any other areas you feel I should avoid? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't threaten, I specifically said I would hate to see it happen. Secondly I didn't say you shouldn't create any, I said go a bit easy on it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of List of 2006 movies[change source]

The page you wrote, List of 2006 movies, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Zaxxon0 (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi zaxxon, your note above does not say why you object to the list I started. Please tell me why you want it removed. Thank you. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to United States[change source]

I reverted your edits to United States because the information provided doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned. You could consider making it a separate article, although it may be quickly deleted. jackchango talk 12:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the information I added is not what is needed, at least not to start the new section I created. However, I do think a section on housing should be added. Do you agree? BTW do you like to be pinged? ? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Including such a section on housing is giving undue weight to it. Personally, I think a separate article on housing is optimal. Vermont (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that as well. It is too specific for an article on the country itself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Daniel Mora[change source]

Thanks for the edit on Daniel Mora but we are going to need a little bit more than one sentence to keep the page going or else it is just useless. But feel free to find out more. Cheers --Examknowtalk 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Examknow: Thanks for stopping by to share this information. I am not sure though how to interpret your comment above. Are you saying that I am wasting my time adding just a tiny bit of information to this article about a Peruvian politican who, if I remember correctly, was or is, involved in some kind of controversy? Or am I mixing him up wth someone else? Thanks in advnce for contiuing this conversation (in slow motion :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Examknow: All that is necessary to keep an article is to say who or what the subject is and to establish notability. While not ideal, that can be done in one sentence, and the sentence Ottawahitech added was enough to keep the article as a stub. It's definitely better, even encouraged, to have more, but we don't always get more. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Thank you very much. It is always good to have your input on these matters. --Examknowtalk 18:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-diffusing subcategories[change source]

When you create these (and there should be very, very few of them), please use the template instead of putting a text note on the page. Also note that, although the recent RFD about gender-specific categories was closed because there was no consensus, there is an active discussion at Simple talk about these. You might still want to hold off on creating them. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by @auntof6, I followed your instructions the best I could at Category:Women judges. As far as the discussion at Simple-talk, I am unable to decipher it without spending a lot of time. My preference is to spend time building content here, so I will leave the talking to others, and try to stay away from doing work in this area. I just hope Simple can avoid the ghetto-scandal en-wiki went thru a few years ago, but not sure how one does it without the use of non-diffusing cats.
Please continue informing me when I do something that may be frowned upon here,I really don’t want to be blocked again. Thanks againOttawahitech (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. The template is Template:Distinguished subcategory. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia, 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/2019/Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia 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. Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eptalon, (not sure if I should ping you?)
Your notice has a link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I realize you simply used a standard deletion tag, but does What Wikipedia is not apply to pages that are not in nain-space? The page you have proposed for deletion is in the project-namespace which I understand is used for meta-discussions related to the operation and development of Simple? Ottawahitech (talk)

RfD nomination of Tracy Andrews[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Tracy Andrews, 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/2019/Tracy Andrews 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. Eptalon (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Edwards[change source]

There are a number of sources that provide her date of birth as September 5,1962, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/oct/01/sailing.features. Nunabas (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Newspaper of Rajasthan[change source]

The largest newspaper of Rajasthan is Rajasthan Patrika you can search it on Google. It also have the coverage of this event.

Shade-loving plants[change source]

Greetings, Ottawahitech! Please see my comment at Talk:Shade-loving plants#Page to improve or delete. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deborahjay: nice to see you back here, and thank you for adding information to the the Wikidata item about shade-loving plants .
As far as deleting this article, I agree that the page needs improvement, but I don’t agree that it needs to be deleted. Anyone who has the faintest interest in plants or gardening must understand that some plants thrive without sun and some perish when planted in shade. It is my understanding that we are trying ro provide information for the public on a wide variety of topics, so why delete this one? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Street actors[change source]

Hi, Ottawahitech. I just wanted to let you know that I removed all the actors from this category. It is not the usual practice -- either here or on enwiki -- to categorize actors by things they appear in. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, @Auntof6:. I did not know that there are no categories for artists by works, I don't have much experience with the arts area of Wikipedia. I wonder why that is? We do categorize people by their employers, Alumni by their educational institution, faculty by their university etc.
In any event, creating this category was an interesting learning experience, I had no idea Coronation Street employed so many actors.
By the way, how about characters? Can they be included in this category? I have seen at least a couple. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Characters (assuming the character is notable enough for their own article) but not the actors who played them can be. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as Djsasso said. The other thing you could do is make a list article of actors who have appeared in the show. As for why we don't include actors in categories about TV shows, movies, etc., I don't know.
An (incomplete) list of actors already exists at List of Coronation Street characters. Not sure how characters that have been portrayed by more than one actor are shown. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Justice system[change source]

The page you wrote, Justice system, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page does not provide any additional information. It is says a justice system is a system for delivering justice. No information is added; just repetition. It goes on to briefly mention courts and police, but only after the recursive definition. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. --Gotanda (talk)

HI @Gotanda:,
It is not clear to me why you believe this article's definition was recursive. I also do not understand why you wanted it deleted: do you not think this topic is wp:notable and does not deserve an article? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I overdid it, but the problem I saw was not notability but that it was a tautology. "The justice system (criminal justice system) is a system of government institutions whose purpose is to deliver justice." Or more directly, The justice system is a system to deliver justice. That isn't a definition, just repetition of the words system and justice. But I guess I went a little too far. That's why QDs are requests. Somebody else can review. Sorry to have bothered you. --Gotanda (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotanda: Thanks for replying, but I still do not get it. How wouhld you have said it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the stem, subject and verb, the term the article is defining, "The justice system is". The words justice and system should not be in in the defining predicate that follows. Other wise you are just saying "A mugwump sump is a sump made of mugwumps." Doesn't give any information. --Gotanda (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gotanda: Please ping me when you address me. I have limited time to devote to Simple, and even though I participate in deletion discussions when time permits, I try to spend more time building content and can't always follow long deletion discussions. Since this deletion discussion is due to close shortly, a ping would help me stay on top of it. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Justice system[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Justice system, 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/2020/Justice system 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. Eptalon (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sausage Tree‎[change source]

Hey, the main page is deleted and I don't know what is this for? QDed and this is just FYI. Cheers,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for asking. I saw the deleted article, it appears, just a second before it was deleted. I figured my comment would be gone shortly so did not see any harm in trying to introduce some levity in this dispirited place. i sure hope i am not in trouble because of it. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
???.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[change source]

You have been blocked indefinitely from changing Wikipedia in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making bad changes over and over again. If you think this block is unfair, you may ask to be unblocked by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private, please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked.
  • I quote the blocking administrator on en.wiki: "A user with your experience should not still be creating pages that qualify for speedy deletion, and there is no reasonable way you are not aware at this point of what the minimum standards for articles are, yet you routinely ignore them, and seemingly deliberately flaunt them. Doing this a few times as a new editor is one thing, doing it for nine and a half years is something else. Users with this much experience are usually the ones helping others make articles better not creating more work for those who maintain this project. The core issue here is the creation of new pages, and given how long this has been a problem I can't see a reasonable path to unblocking that doesn't involve some sort of restriction on you doing so in the future." Chenzw  Talk  13:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: I honestly did not know that the Simple community objected to the new articles I have started here. No one had said anything to me about it recently, I think.
Since Blocking is not supposed to be punitive, would you consider unblcking me if I promised to stop creating new pages in mainspace?Ottawahitech (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Community approval/disapproval is not required when it comes to QD articles. An article is either eligible for QD, or not. Chenzw  Talk  05:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw, I don't believe this block is necessary. As far as I can tell, they made an article about an author who, though the article was a single sentence and thus could be percieved as not having a claim, is quite obviously notable, and was blocked for it. I understand that they have an active block on the English Wikipedia, but they're obviously a good faith contributor who has helped out a lot on our project in the over two years since their enwiki block. We want to be a welcoming community, we want to be bringing in more volunteers and fostering community support, and this isn't helping. There is very little, if any, benefit from leaving Ottawahitech blocked. Vermont (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the very fact that the subject of the article has been established to be notable at enwiki is all the more so a reason to sanction him. My take is that there is no excuse for an experienced editor (who has also been advised on EN) to not include any claim of notability in an article whose subject was established to be notable on EN. This is in line with EN's blocking administrator's claim that "you routinely ignore them, and seemingly deliberately flaunt them". With that said, as with all of my administrative actions here on this wiki, I will not consider overturning this block myself, but am open to any other uninvolved administrator reversing this administrative action. Chenzw  Talk  03:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, do you understand what the issues were with the article you created? Vermont (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is also not the first time. If Chenzw had not blocked him I would have. He has continuously displayed the same issues that got him blocked at en.wiki. Which was the definition of the reason we have the onestrike policy. Frankly he probably should have been blocked years ago at this point. You say "they're obviously a good faith contributor who has helped out a lot on our project" but I don't believe that is true. They very clearly display bad faith behaviors and a very very large amount of their work has had to be undone or fixed over the years. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have only seen a very little bit of Ottawa's work here on Simple but I've worked with him on Wikinews. It sounds like the problem is that he makes new articles here that all have to be deleted, which increases other people's workload without benefitting the readers.
Ottawa says above "would you consider unblcking me if I promised to stop creating new pages in mainspace?"
Does this solve the problem? Perhaps instead of a block, a formal agreement to not make new articles for some set period of time would do the trick. He wouldn't need to understand why they were deleted or agree with the people who deleted them, and because creating an article is such a clearly defined thing, there is very little chance of anyone misinterpreting anything. It's his own idea, so he clearly doesn't mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just that, its almost all of his content work as well. He also very clearly tries to use wikipedia as an advocacy platform which is against Wikipedia's NPOV stance. But the whole purpose of our ONESTRIKE method is that we don't want to have to deal with these kinds of individualized "work plans" for users that have already been blocked elsewhere who come here having not learned their lesson the first time on the first wiki. At this point, his only method to be unblocked here in most cases is to first get unblocked at the original wiki he was blocked on. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request to all simple Admins[change source]

@Auntof6:: Please do not protect this page. I would like to be able to appeal this block sometime in the future. Everyone who knows me is aware that I have no access to email. If you protect this page you are in effect disallowing me an appeal.

Also, please do not undo postings on my talk-page, it is not necessary. My enwiki talk-page is not protected and has had zero postings from vandals for many years. When you block access to the talk-page, you are preventing me doing my own research to find out who is /are my harassers.

Thank you. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the accusation of Participating by proxy here is what it says:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive .

Did I make any requests that contravene this policy? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being characterized as a sockpuppet?[change source]

@Chenzw: I see your bot made this edit Autoblock #58445 at Special:BlockList dated October 23, 2020. I have not been editing simple for quite some time, either signed in or as an IP. How and why did you determine that a certain IP address belongs to me? Which article am I supposed to have edited? Respectfully, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bot does not perform administrative actions. An autoblock is applied to your IP whenever you, logged in as yourself, click on "change this page" anywhere on this wiki. This is how the wiki's block mechanism works, by default, when a registered editor is blocked. Chenzw  Talk  12:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: Thank you for removing the offensive entry from Special:BlockList. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an offensive entry, and there was no manual removal. It's a feature of MediaWiki blocks. Vermont (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Fram incident on the English Wikipedia[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Fram incident on the English Wikipedia, 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/2020/Fram incident on the English Wikipedia 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. Yottie =talk= 12:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Northern Light[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Northern Light, 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/2021/Northern Light 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. Eptalon (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon:
Thank you for notifying me of this deletion discussion. As you probably know I cannot " comment on the discussion by adding [my] comments", however I am delighted to see three editors whom I do not recognize have already chimed in. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of List of women scientists[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of List of women scientists, 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/2022/List of women scientists 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. Eptalon (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Women lawyers[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Women lawyers, 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/2022/Category:Women lawyers 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. Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Credit rating[change source]

The page you wrote, Credit rating, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. MathXplore (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of List of women judges[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of List of women judges, a page 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/2023/List of women judges 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. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification @Rathfelder. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email[change source]

Could you please enable your email? I have something really important to tell you. Ischekit (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottawahitech&oldid=9186190"