User talk:Rathfelder

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

Welcome[change source]

Hello! I am assuming you have come over from the English Wikipedia, so you are probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few links to help you adjust:

There is much to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that do not exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you would like to do. Thank you for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need help. Operator873 connect 22:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also, please do be aware of the WP:ONESTRIKE policy on this project. Operator873 connect 22:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am certainly not planning to do anything improper. I may struggle to get some of this content into Simple English so I would be very happy to get advice or assistance. Rathfelder (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I'm starting with social security, on the basis that it is something people who come to the UK and dont speak much English might need to know about. Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really need to stop editing for a bit until you're able to read WP:HOW since most of your edits contain complex language. Operator873 connect 23:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am still working on them. I have read WP:HOW. I do work with people with learning difficulties and poor English in this area. I am worried that if we depart too far from the words used by officials the articles will be less helpful. We need to keep the names of the laws. Many of the terms are prescribed in law and using different words can easily be misleading. And some very basic words, like mental and disability, for example, dont appear in the word list and the Wiktionary definition doesnt seem very helpful. I entirely agree that editing here is much harder. Easier to write for the Guardian than the Sun.

Do you think the changes I've made are moving in the right direction? Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NB many of the existing articles in this area use complex language without explanation and some are incomprehensible to me. Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2023[change source]

Hello, Rathfelder! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links", which you used in "Department for Work and Pensions". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 23:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Still learning! Rathfelder (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LZ77/LZ78...[change source]

Hello Rathfelder, I don't know the details of the algorithms, but the basic concepts will likely be similar to Huffman coding, developed about 30 years earlier. Eptalon (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Law enforcement category[change source]

I think it would make more sense to put Category:Police inside Category:Law enforcement, instead of the other way around. However, I'm not really sure what the difference is between the two categories. Do you know? Maybe they are both the same and should be merged? Lights and freedom (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree police should be inside. I dont think they are the same thing. Police are only one way in which laws are enforced, although the term is much used in the USA, but even there I think there are other ways in which laws are enfoced. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think prisons should be included in the category? Lights and freedom (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think so, and also fines and probation and the like, if we have articles about them. Maybe even some aspects of religion. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legal terms category[change source]

What makes something a legal term? Why is Divorce a legal term, but Eviction is not? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. I'm still working on them. I wouldn't actually put either in Category:Legal terms. I think that is really for words only used in courts or by lawyers. I've been moving stuff out of the main Category:Law which was really over full. I'm planning to come back to the subcategories in the next few days. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Divorce is definitely a legal term, whereas "separation" is just an adjective which may or may not get used in a particular court case. A legal term would be one used in actual legislation, with an agreed definition in law. However, one might find that separation does have a legal definition. For example, the use of a length of time might allow a court to decide that a separation was grounds for divorce. In the last resort, if a term is used in legislation, then it it a legal term. Of course, there are differences between countries, that has to be considered. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I dont think we want the categories to run on the last resort. There are probably hundreds of thousands of terms which are used in legislation. "Death" for example has legal definitions (rather wonderfully different in different countries). I think it should be for words which people are most likely to come across in a legal context. Rathfelder (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2023[change source]

Hello! Thank you for creating a new category. 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. It looks like you created a lot of "Government of <country>" categories. Please check them and add entries to the ones that have fewer than 3 entries. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am planning to populate them. There will certainly be more than 3 for most countries. Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:European organizations[change source]

May I ask how this category is different from Category:Organizations based in Europe? MathXplore (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is for international organisations covering Europe. most of Organizations based in Europe cover just one country, or some, the whole world. Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I think the category should be renamed like "Category:International organizations based in Europe", as same as enwiki, what do you think about this? MathXplore (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be different. Being based in Europe is not the same as having Europe as the area covered. Large numbers of international organisastions are baed in Brussels or in Switzerland but they aspire to cover the world.Rathfelder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For international organisations, where they are based is not really defining.Rathfelder (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But maybe it should be a subcateghory of Organizations based in Europe?Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think African organisations would also be a helpful category.Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helpful page[change source]

Hello, and thank you for your helpful changes here :) I'm not sure if anyone has pointed you in this direction, but you may find this user essay helpful in pointing out the differences between enwiki and simplewiki. Best regards, --IWI (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All very sensible! Rathfelder (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of Maiden Pharmaceuticals[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Maiden Pharmaceuticals, 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/Maiden Pharmaceuticals 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) 18:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supreme Court cases[change source]

I feel like Category:United States Supreme Court cases should be somehow categorized under Category:United States law. But I'm not sure if this should be directly categorized, or if the whole US judicial system should be under United States law. What do you think? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We probably need a category of US caselaw and this would be a sub cat of it. Rathfelder (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rathfelder. I noticed that you did some edits so that this is the live category instead of Category:Liverpool, Merseyside. When you make a change like that, please make sure to change the Wikidata entry as well, so that the correct category is in the interwiki links there. If you don't know how to do that, let me know and I'd be glad to explain it. Thanks!

By the way, it's often better to make this kind of change with a move instead of editing the pages involved. With a move, not only is that history preserved, but the Wikidata change is taken care of. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea how to change wikidata entries! Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a way to do it in this case. (It maybe different in other cases.)
  1. Go to the category on English Wikipedia.
  2. Along the left side of the page, find the list of languages and click on "Edit links" at the bottom of the list.
  3. That brings you to the interwiki link section of the Wikidata page for the category. In the heading for that section, click on "Edit".
  4. Scroll down to the entry for simple and change the name of the category.
  5. Back in the heading for the section, click on "Publish". You're done!
Let me know if you'd like more information. Thanks again! -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave you this info so that you could make the change, but if you want me to do it, just let me know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I will leave it to you. I cant find a Wikidata page for the category.Rathfelder (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. The Wikidata page is here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Year establishment categories[change source]

Why do each of these categories need two navigation boxes? Lights and freedom (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They dont, but Navseasoncats seems better than what they had. Not sure whether I can just take the other one off. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can improve the template {{establishment year}} if the navigation box doesn't look very good. But it's not broken, it does its job... --Ferien (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be one or the other. The only difference I can see is that the one you're adding links to adjacent decades. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Establishment year seems confined by decades. I dont know anything about templates, so improving that would be a better option if someone can do that. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I mentioned to you before that this wiki doesn't categorize settlements (including cities, towns, etc.) under geography, and that if you wanted to change that then we should get consensus via discussion. So please do not move them under geography until and unless there is consensus about that. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I raised this issue in Simple Talk and your view did not get any support. It undermines the basic principle of categorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean this? One person asked you to explain your initial post, which didn't mention the specific issue, and no one responded with an opinion supporting either side -- that is not consensus.
I can see your point about this being contrary to the way categorization is done elsewhere. However, this is not the only thing this wiki does differently and I don't think it undermines anything. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may think that, but it doesnt appear to be a documented policy and when I raised the issue in Simple Talk nobody supported your position. Categorization is fundamentally hierarchical. I dont see why it should be different in geography than in other areas. Rathfelder (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I said: I was asked to start a discussion arising from Category:Settlements by country, which I think should be sub categories of Category:Geography by country. I was told that " we don't categorize them that way here. We use the geography categories for physical geography only." Nobody suggested I was wrong. I think if you think there is a contrary policy you need to establish that, given that it contradicts the fundamental principle, " Pages should be placed in the lowest level of the category tree that applies to them" which is the same here as on other Wikipedias. Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As frustrating as it might be, not everything is determined by a policy or guideline. Some things are determined by established practice. All I asked was that if you're going to change a long-established practice, you discuss it so that people have a chance to say something about it if they want to and they aren't surprised by it. It wasn't until later in the section that you mentioned the issue of putting settlements under geography. By that point, people may have read the first post, decided they didn't have any input, and moved on. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think we should tolerate long-established practice which is not in accordance with published policies. Its a good way of making the thing elitist. There is far too much of it here. Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore the head category, Category:Settlements is a subcategory of Category:Geography. You put it there. If there is to be any discussion of the relationship that is where it should take place.Rathfelder (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorizing[change source]

Thanks for categorizing those articles that were in Category:Category needed. (I noticed them because I watch that category.) I'd like to suggest that you look at the guideline Wikipedia:Categories#Categorizing_people to get a good picture of what categories are needed on biographical articles. In particular, I noticed that some of the articles you categorized still need the defaultsort as well as categories for birth year and/or death year (or the equivalent categories if you don't know those things). Thanks again, and if you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood flag[change source]

Hello there, thank you for your categorization work. However, as you can see on the RecentChanges, it is flooding the feed. Would you be alright if I give you the flood flag? This will hide your edits from the recent changes until the flood flag expires. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 09:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont know what a food flag is, but if it helps .... Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The flood flag hides your edits from the recent changes feed. It is useful when you're doing many repetitive and uncontroversial edits. That way, people that patrol the recent changes feed will not see your changes. I'll give it to you for an hour. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 10:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this tool can help your works. Thank you for the contributions. MathXplore (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata[change source]

At some point, can you connect your new categories to Wikidata? Thanks. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems to happen automatically. I have had loads of message to say its happened. Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MathXplore has been connecting them. I just connected Crinan Canal. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea how to do it. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this: User:Auntof6/How_to#Interwiki_language_links_for_new_pages. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont have language on the left. "On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title." There is no link that says "Add links". Rathfelder (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like you are using the new Vector skin. The link is called "Add interlanguage links". — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 08:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redlinks on templates[change source]

Please don't remove redlinks on templates, we leave them on templates on purpose on this wiki in order to know what articles we have to create. -Djsasso (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that is a very bad policy. It fills them with useless (as far as readers go) redlinks and makes the list of Wanted pages unusable. These templates have been imported from other wikis with no effort to adapt them. Unless you can point me to an agreed policy which confirms what you say I will continue. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because we are much smaller than English Wikipedia, we try harder to convert those readers into creating articles by leaving red links in both templates and articles at a higher rate than English Wikipedia. Templates are the most effective way of doing that. It has been discussed and reaffirmed many many times on Simple Talk. I will look for a recent discussion on it. Templates should definitely have text changed to Simple English where applicable, but other than that, generally our templates will look identical to English ones. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that is the policy it makes Wanted pages useless.Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah that is true, it doesn't really help in the way that it might on other Wikis. For people looking for something to create I often point them towards Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded which has a lot of red links on it still that should be created. That is the source of the selected Wanted Pages we put on the top of Special:RecentChanges. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the idea that we should have comprehensive set of articles about Italian villages like "Lusernetta is a comune in the Metropolitan City of Turin in the Piedmont region in Italy." as generated by Template:Metropolitan City of Turin is crazy. There are never going to be 5 million articles in this wikipedia. Rathfelder (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you would add topics called "?" and the content is just ? and your signature. Does this do something? I'm still quite new so I don't know what you are doing. Angerxiety! 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am taking unwanted red links out of Special:WantedPages. These talk pages seem to have been deleted when they shouldnt have been. Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see, thanks! - Angerxiety! 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a talk page was deleted when it shouldn't have been, then it can be restored. Please don't create talk pages just to resolve red links. There's no need to have the talk pages if there's no actual discussion. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can it be restored when there is no content? Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's no content, then it probably never existed and wasn't actually deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By deleting them you are disrupting Special:WantedPages Please dont do that. Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no such thing as disrupting that page. Just because something appears there, that doesn't mean the page really needs to be created. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects from article space to category space[change source]

Please don't create redirects from article space to category space, as you did with List of people from Vermont. As I mentioned above, the fact that something appears on Special:WantedPages is not reason by itself to create a page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means that readers get a list of people in Vermont instead of a redlink. Why would we not do that? Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick deletion of May 1968 events in France[change source]

The page you wrote, May 1968 events in France, 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. Gotanda (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no internet access this morning. I wrote this because it is on the list of articles every language should have. If you think it needs more simplification I will have a try. (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Discussion going on. 2001:2020:337:9762:F511:250D:83EB:B150 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical specialties[change source]

We have:

So my question is, what should be the hierarchy for each of these things? Should each disease/disorder category go in both the medical specialty category and the organ system category? Lights and freedom (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been thinking about this. I dont think illnesses should be directly in the ology categories if we can avoid that. I've made several "problems" categories because I think that is good for simple English. The anatomical categories should be the top level. I'm inclined to think the medical speciality and the disease/problem category should both be subordinate to that. Its not obvious that either should be a subcategory of the other. But I'm open to persuasion, and maybe that works OK for some of them.
Something I am not happy about is the way Category:Diseases and disorders works. There isnt really a clear distinction between a disease and a disorder. But I'm not sure how to improve it. Any thoughts? Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the diseases categories should be in ology categories, because the field of medicine is mainly designed to treat diseases of that region. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some diseases dont fit neatly onto an ology, and quite a lot of them fall into more than one ology. Furthermore medicine is getting more and more specialised, so we will be getting quite a few more ology categories. What I really am unhappy about is putting the diseases themselves into an ology category. If we have a category for neurological problems, or diseases of the nervous system, then that could be a subcategory of neurology. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think category:heart disease can go in cardiology, category:endocrine diseases can go in endicrinology, etc. The diseases themselves don't have to be in the category. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite happy with that. We will still have boundary problems though - for example between psychiatry and neurology. Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First point: this discussion should be taking place on a central page so that all are aware of it. Other users' rights are important.
Second point: the only agreement we have for undiscussed issues is to follow En wiki. A large number of qualified people have contributed to that wiki on this and other technical subjects. We need to be careful, and to follow En wiki except where there is a real consensus on this wiki. I'm not against changes, especially if it can be shown that our categories do not align with En wiki. I think the views expressed here are perfectly proper, but I think they should be transferred to a central page so that other users can follow it, and comment if they wish. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There isnt anywhere central to discuss categories. Rathfelder (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organizations based in states[change source]

I don't think government bodies, such as a State Senate and State Assembly, should be categorized as Organizations. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Lights and freedom: For what it's worth, enwiki has en:Category:Legislatures not only in en:Category:Legal organizations, but also in en:Category:Government institutions, which is in en:Category:Government-related organizations.
Even if that weren't the case, though, I would disagree that legislatures and their houses aren't organizations. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to distinguish (though articles often dont) between organisations and their buildings. But its hard to see that a parliament or senate is not an organisation. If we had more articles we could give government bodies their own categories.

I've noticed that articles about the Government of Foo are often in Organizations based in Foo categories.

Institution is really just another word for organisation.
What would be most helpful for people with limited command of English? Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![change source]

The Categorisation Barnstar
Thank you for your work! Dylan | ✉   20:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family of Muhammad[change source]

I'm not a Muslim and I don't know the subject very well, but I think the term for Muslims who were alive at the time of Muhammad is Category:Sahaba (or Companions of the Prophet). Many of his family members would likely go there. Of course, it's possible that some family members weren't Muslims, or died before Islam was founded. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe the family should be a subcategory of Sahaba? Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cats on user pages[change source]

Hi, Rathfelder. When you find categories on user pages that don't belong there, you can disable them without deleting them. That way, they don't get lost if the user is working on something. To disable a category, just put a colon between the opening square brackets and the word "Category", like this:

[[:Category:Living people]]

Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody seems to be working on most of the pages I've done that to. And deleting can easily be undone. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fred Rogers VGA[change source]

Hi, the process has stalled again. Promote or demote, either way, may I ask you to take a moment and vote on it. Since you helped by editing it recently, you may be able to give an opinon and help keep the process moving. More than this individual article, I think it would help the wiki if we could make this process work more smoothly. Thank you very much for your time and attention. --Gotanda (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schuschnigg...[change source]

Hello,En:Kurt Schuschnigg was an important person in the history of Austria. he ruled Austria from 1934 to 1938. Yes, he emigrated to the United States, but I don't think he was an academic from Missouri. So perhaps reconsider the category. Eptalon (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He started a new life in the USA. He was an academic in Missouri, not in Austria. "From" is ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2023[change source]

Hello! Thank you for creating a new category. 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. This applies to various categories you created, including some of the ones for American academics and Category:University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am am still working on American academics. It will take some time. Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood flag[change source]

Hello there. I've noticed your changes are flooding recent changes. If you're going to make many more, would it be alright if I granted you the flood flag? And let me know how long you may take. You've just got to make sure all of your edits are uncontroversial and on the same task, like they have been for the past half an hour or so. --Ferien (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes please. Hundreds more of these to do. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the future, just ask a sysop to do so again for you. I’ll help keep the recent changes tidy. Thanks! Illusion Flame (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added that for you for a few hours. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![change source]

The Minor Barnstar
Hello! I noticed all your work in recent changes and wanted to thank you for taking the time to do all of it. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB/JWB[change source]

Hello @Rathfelder! Thanks for your recent contributions. I wanted to ask if you were interested/aware of AutoWikibrowser. It will allow you to make your changes quicker. If you’re interested, you can simply request it here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. This also allows you to use WP:JWB. Illusion Flame (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I did try it once but couldnt get it to work Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I need to check it will work. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would try reading the documentation page again. Do you want the permissions? Illusion Flame (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I should, but I ma not very keen. Ive seen too many categorisations messed up by templates. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![change source]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for making daily extrenuous and repetitive tasks every day on Wikipedia. You have put extreme amounts of effort into this project and I thank you greatly for that. FatalFit | ✉   18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overtagging[change source]

Hi Rathfelder, I noticed you added 3 separate tags to Somerset, Tasmania here. This is excessive. Two of the three issues you pointed out (dead end and no sources) are really only due to the fact the article is a stub and the category issue was very easy to resolve. I also fixed the no sources issue in a couple of minutes. Please keep this in mind before adding articles to the already large backlog of articles to "cleanup", when the problem here is just the length of the article. --Ferien (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wasnt me. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies. Thank you for being the one who resolved the category issue quickly and apologies for bothering you :) --Ferien (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Comment on Category:Cancer survivors RfD". Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood Flag[change source]

Hello Rathfelder. I noticed you are currently making the same edit a lot of categories and wanted to remind you that you can request the flood flag to hide your edits for a bit again by request on WP:AN It is currently starting to fill up RC and I wasn't sure how many more you intended to do. Either way thanks for your edits. Bobherry Talk My Changes 19:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only a few more this time Rathfelder (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a massive deal now you've done them, but for future, the {{navseasoncats}} template should go above the categories. --Ferien (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edits are flooding RC again. Please request the flag. See RC feed. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories populated[change source]

The following categories are now populated:

Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

XX century cats[change source]

Hi, these should be at "Category:XXth-century foos" rather than "Category:XXth century foos", per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Longer time periods. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the same applies to the millennium ones as well. --Ferien (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think the hyphen is necessary in simple English? What does it signify? Rathfelder (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy gives us both "the 19th century", and "a 19th-century book" Rathfelder (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of the policy, what it is saying is that "the 19th century" would be used if the 19th century was a thing we are talking about, but if it is an adjective, we use a hyphen. --Ferien (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) Not sure it really "signifies" something, but it is correct grammar. When used as an adjective, the words are hyphenated. When used as a noun, they are separate. For example:
  • This book was written in the 19th century.
  • This is a 19th-century book.
A similar example is when talking about stained glass. When using it to describe a window, it's "stained-glass window". When talking about it by itself, it's "stained glass" without the hyphen. For example:
  • This is a stained-glass window.
  • This window is made with stained glass.
The grammatical term for this is "compound modifier." You can see more examples at en:English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usage is by no means universal, as you can see by inspecting this page [[1]]. So my question is still, Do we think this usage is appropriate or helpful in Simple English? (And I ask as a qualified teacher of English) Rathfelder (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know why it would be inappropriate or unhelpful. In addition, en:MOS:CENTURY says:

Centuries and millennia are identified using either Arabic numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium), with in-article consistency (MOS:ORDINAL notwithstanding). When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 19th-century painting).

That is from English Wikipedia, but we use their guidelines for topics that don't have specific guidelines here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the hyphen add any meaning? Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meaning isn't the point. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the point of an encyclopedia other than meaning? Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we dont have a guideline, how do we make one? Rathfelder (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for categorizing![change source]

I noticed that you categorized some articles that were in Category:Category needed. Thanks for doing that. When you categorize, it would help if you also do the following:

  • If the article is about a living person, include the category Category:Living people.
  • Include a DEFAULTSORT where needed. This is needed in most articles about people, and also in some other articles.

You can find more information about this at the guideline Wikipedia:Categories#Categorizing people. Thanks again for helping with this! -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2023[change source]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you made, 10th century BC, did not meet our rules for new pages, so it has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about changing. Thank you. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What rule did it not meet? Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any article can be quickly deleted if it:
Is very short and provides little or no meaning (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Having a small amount of content is not a reason to delete if it has useful information. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was part of a huge series of similar articles. What about the hundreds of others? Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It only said when the century starts and ends. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit like 1st millennium? Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that should be deleted too. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe not because it has links? I don't know for sure. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it more sensible to leave such articles where they are part of a well established pattern and are helpful markers. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. I won't nominate any more of them for deletion. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) When articles about years, centuries, etc., contain only the generic information that's at the top of all such pages, and they don't contain any other info that's specific to the topic, we have usually deleted them for the reason that this one was nominated. @Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron: feel free to nominate them when you see them, but they're likely to get deleted on sight even if you don't. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![change source]

The Original Barnstar
For your great work with making categories and adding them to pages. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Karnataka[change source]

Can you please check the pages by them? Some of them don't have the correct categories, and some of them have unnecessary categories like "Pages with dead external links" when they don't have any external links at all. Some of them have a reference section but no references. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And quite a lot dont have any categories. But why me? Have you talked to them? Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I just thought you had a lot of experience here. You don't need to review them. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that much. Maybe we should ask an admin to help. Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:7th-century works on Hindi[change source]

You added Category:7th-century works on Hindi. How is Hindi a work? Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, according to the English wikipedia article Hindi " emerged in the 7th century CE." - which I think is very interesting. But perhaps it isnt a "work". Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorization of Yugoslavians[change source]

Hi there, I would like to propose categorization split in Cat:Yugoslavian people. See, like Soviet Union, Yugoslavia was an umbrella term for multiple nationalities, so IMO it's appropriate to sort them under Slovenian sportspeople, Croatian sportspeople etc. As I saw recently you're doing the most categorization here, I'm intrested about your perspective. Thanks, A09 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When they competed internationally they competed for Yugoslavia. Its misleading to put them a Croatian Olympians. Ditto for the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia and some other countries. And people clearly moved about all those countries. We can put them as people from Split or wherever, without a problem. I think people should be categorised by countries as the country was when they were there. It does get quite difficult when you look for example at the history of Poland. Rathfelder (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about "Yugoslavian Olympians from ..."? My humble opinion is that "Soviets", "Yugoslavians" etc. are problematic as those were all multi-national countries. Agree with you that they competed for Yugoslavia, that wasn't even my intention to negate. A09 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly I have them in 2 categories - Croatian sportspeople and Yugoslavian Olympians for example. Dont forget this problem is not unique to Yugoslavia. There isnt a British football team -there are seperate ones for Scotland, Wales, England and NI. Sports have their own rules for countries and within a sport we have to try and follow them. Rathfelder (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cause of death categories[change source]

Why do you keep removing them from pages? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories are supposed to be defining. For people who die of natural causes in old age they arent. Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[change source]

I just brought Female reproductive system over from en wp. I am working on its simplification. I would like to know if you help get its categories up to speed. If anyone knows categories it is you. I respect your work. Regards, Barbara (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Since there is a category with the same name, that is the only category that's really needed on the article. Any other relevant categories would go on the category itself. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is very kind.
This sort of article, which has its own category should normally just be in that category.
Categorisation is not an exact science. It's about successive approximation. Be bold! Rathfelder (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czechoslovakian[change source]

Do you think Category:Czechoslovakian Olympic gold medalists should be changed to "Czechoslovak" to match the other categories? 2607:F140:400:A000:5091:105D:5582:FD0E (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I think people use both, but we should be consistent. Even though I wasnt. Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:British Pakistanis[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Category:British Pakistanis, 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/Category:British Pakistanis 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. MathXplore (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basque pelota[change source]

Please merge your article Basque Pelota into the older article Basque pelota. Kk.urban (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thank you for noticing. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of Counties in Fars Province[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Counties in Fars Province, 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/Counties in Fars Province 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. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick deletion of Counties in Fars Province[change source]

The page you wrote, Counties in Fars Province, 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) 02:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar[change source]

The Categorisation Barnstar
Thanks for all your work on categorization of the mainspace. Well done! fr33kman 01:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you like the flood flag turning on? If so, for how long? fr33kman 08:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me. Maybe for the day. There are a lot of Swiss municipalities. Rathfelder (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! If you need it turning off before it expires ping any admin. :) fr33kman 08:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont really understand what difference it makes from my end. Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes no difference to yu. It stops your many little edits from showing up in Recent Changes so we don't see a flood. fr33kman 08:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to have an assistant: Rathfelder (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop removed to Category:Cities in Switzerland. Are you okay. (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories should relate to the content of the article. These articles say nothing about these small places being cities. See [[2]] Rathfelder (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you need the flag again? If so for how long? Thx fr33kman 18:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until midnight? Rathfelder (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done until 12am. Have fun! :) fr33kman 18:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isnt the most exciting thing I've done, but I do think it needs doing. Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're good at it and we thank you for i. fr33kman 18:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flood flag removed, thanks for your hard work! :) fr33kman 23:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood flag? How long? fr33kman 08:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, never mind, if you do need it ask on WP:AN. Thanks fr33kman 08:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood flag??? :) fr33kman 18:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going out in 10 minutes! Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, enjoy! fr33kman 18:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[change source]

, so much, in regard to (Alta) and "Älta (new article)". 2001:2020:333:9D9C:DCA4:6A63:6836:6470 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood flag needed? fr33kman 15:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No going for tea shortly! Rathfelder (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, enjoy! fr33kman 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
flood? fr33kman 19:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go on then! Until midnight I think Japan will keep me busy. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done for 3 hours. have fun! fr33kman 19:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] given you flood for 3 hours fr33kman 20:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody else honors me in this way! Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
flood? fr33kman 16:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tea time soon! Rathfelder (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flood? fr33kman 16:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go on then! Rathfelder (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done until midnight-ish fr33kman 16:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to have finished so I've taken flood off you. I have added you to rollback though as you might as well have it. C u 2mow :) fr33kman 23:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you need flood today? fr33kman 19:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well if you insist! Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Enjoy! fr33kman 19:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gave you flood until midnight as usual :) fr33kman 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you want the flood flag tonight? fr33kman 18:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK Rathfelder (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done for 5 hours, have fun! fr33kman 18:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback[change source]

Hello, Rathfelder. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Category:French nobility.
Message added 12:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MathXplore (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood 3[change source]

I've given you the flood flag until midnight; enjoy yourself dude! fr33kman 16:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you take a look at Political union and see if you still want the RfD? Pure Evil (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help please[change source]

Hi! I've created an article (yes, I do write in mainspace from time-to-time) called Grocer. It needs cats. Could you do that for me? Thanks a lot!!:) fr33kman 15:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

certainly. Though we may need some new ones in this area. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for helping!! :) fr33kman 18:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've given you flood until midnight as you are flooding Recent Changes. Let me know if you don't want or need it. :) fr33kman 21:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. You are the only person who does this. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) That's because it's better for you to ask ahead of time before doing mass changes. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I almost always do lots of small changes. Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally give it to you when I notice you are doing more than 30 edits per hour or when you are actually flooding recent changes. fr33kman 19:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we delete these categories?[change source]

There's only one page in each, and these are the only categories like this. Can we just put the pages back in Category:Nations at the Olympics? Kk.urban (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course we can - though clearly we could go the other way and give all the larger countries Olympic categories. I'd be surprised if there were not plenty of articles for them. See Category:Nations at the Paralympics. Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There do not seem to be enough articles for any categories. I have emptied these categories, and they can be deleted in four days. Kk.urban (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to tell you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Disruptive RfD nominations by Rathfelder". Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood given until midnight. fr33kman 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Going out soon! Rathfelder (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for categorizing this article. As mentioned above, please include a defaultsort in articles about people. Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this down to me and not the author of the article? Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The author should have done it, and should have added categories, too. But the defaultsort comes info play only when there are categories, so when you add categories the defaultsort is needed.
And now that I think about it, some non-biographical articles also need a defaultsort, but the biographical ones almost always need them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do try to do this, but I dont always notice. Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need Help Regarding Twinkle Tool[change source]

Hello @Rathfelder i saw that you are very experienced editor. will you please help me, how to activate twinkle tool? Jhon Mathewww (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you go to the My settings on your user page and then look for the heading Gadgets. There should be a box for twinkle that you can tick. Good luck! Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank You @Rathfelder Jhon Mathewww (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jhon Mathewww A comment: I don't think you can use Twinkle until your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits. Kk.urban (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes i didn't see twinkle tool so i activated Hot Cat for now. Jhon Mathewww (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jhon Mathewww Hot Cat can be used to add categories to articles. Kk.urban (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contact information[change source]

Hey Rathfelder, could I get your phone number? Wanted to send you a picture of something that would be interesting. dotdotcomma (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Rathfelder (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning[change source]

Your recent changes, like those to Elementary particle, are vandalism and are not acceptable on any Wikipedia. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize, you may be blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia. (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My changes are intended to simplify Category:Complex pages. If you think I have got it wrong please change the articles yourself. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pitt County, North Carolina[change source]

Hi, I noticed you removed the complex tag on Pitt County, North Carolina. Do you really think this paragraph is simple enough?

In the early twentieth century Pitt was a typical Democratic "Solid South" county, where there were large numbers of disenfranchised blacks and the small white electorate voted overwhelming majorities for the Democratic Party. Pitt voted for the Democratic Party in every election from at least 1876 until American Independent candidate George Wallace gained a plurality in 1968. Apart from Richard Nixon's overwhelming victory over George McGovern in 1972, Pitt has since been a closely contested swing county, with no major party candidate post-McGovern falling under 40%.

Kk.urban (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could do with more simplification! But there are some links in there which should help. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think we should put the complex tag back. This has several long words and sentences, and it wasn't simplified at all from English Wikipedia. Kk.urban (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine by me. I think simplification is a continuous process. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for being a medical contributors![change source]

The 2023 Cure Award
In 2023 you were one of the top medical editors in your language. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining for 2024, there are no associated costs.

Additionally one of our primary efforts revolves around translation of health content. We invite you to try our new workflow if you have not already. Our dashboard automatically collects statistics of your efforts and we are working on tools to automatically improve formating.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 22:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont suppose you could help me to get unbanned? Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gonzalo Lira[change source]

Hello, could you give an opinion on that article by Gonzalo Lira, it seems relevant to me. (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By Colonelsnow[change source]

Hello! I'm Colonelsnow. I saw you in the history page of Bernard Baruch that you've changed, or edited, my article. I'd like to reply to you thanks for your cooperation, and thanked you. (You might see another number of thanks in your User page). Colonelsnow (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate article[change source]

Please note that Long COVID already existed when you created Long Covid. Kk.urban (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. didnt notice it. Rathfelder (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor Edits vs. Regular Edits[change source]

Hi. When you add anything other than punctuation or something an automated tool may do (like mosdates) almost all edits are not minor. Please make sure you do not check that box. This is one [[3]] of those that you made and marked it as minor. If you have any questions, please feel free to ping me. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 09:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a definition of minor edits? Rathfelder (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Help:Minor_change or you can also click the ? next to the minor change on the edit summary. As stated it is to fix a small spelling or grammatical error that no one would argue about. Anything else is not a minor edit. Some automated tools mark things as minor so as not to flood different logs that a normal user will not see but those of us who do vandalism fighting and such look at them and a minor edit usually will only show a change of a +1 or +2 or even -1 or -2 not a +2,734 (just an example). Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" change to an article that changes its meaning is not a small change". My change didnt change the meaning of that article. It added references and simplified the wording. Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would recommend you look at it again. It has a +1,360 and you made changes to the article. The meaning of what is being said is a small minor change includes reverting vandalism, etc. Changing the article even if just adding references is not considered a small change and looking at your change to the article you changed a lot more than just a reference Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy does not say that adding references is not considered a small change. Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A great example is you removed the original “About” section and put in a whole new about section. It’s there in black and white with the link I just posted to the diff. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, even simplifying the wording is not a minor change. “Any change to the information, pictures, or other things in the article is not small, and should not be marked as small.” Formatting is considered small but that has to do with the layout, not linking and adding references. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems to be your opinion. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like I can get an admin involved who will tell you the exact same thing. The policy is very simple. If you click on the links on the help it tells you exactly what format means, tell you exactly what a small change is. It is very simple. If it is not a vandalism rollback, fixing a wiki link error, fixing a spelling error or grammar error then it is not a small change. It says so right there on the page. Even a comment posted on a page is not considered a small change (also on the page). So we can end the discussion now with the understanding that you understand what a minor edit is. I am not going to continue the conversation as I’m going to assume you understand this. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2024[change source]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to keep the encyclopedia looking neat and professional. Using different styles in the encyclopedia, as you did to "Healthcare in Iran", can make it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about changing this encyclopedia. Thank you. I have already spoken to you about the minor vs normal edits and you are still marking your edits as minor. You do not need to check the box, it’s that simple. It’s a manual process unless you use certain tools. This is your first formal warning. I’m cautioning you now to stop. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 11:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So why are you the first to complain when I have marked many thousands of similar edits as minor? And what difference will it make to anything?
I agree that Long COVID should not have been marked as minor. Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again this is not up for debate. You have challenged every single person (admins and stewards) when they correct you and you continue to ignore what they’ve said to you and you continue to ignore what I’ve said to you. It’s not whether you agree with the policies, our norms, the way we do things here. That is exactly that. It is the way we do things. I’ve pointed out your errors in the above messages and you continued doing the same thing. Despite me linking the policies, the MOS and our guidelines, which we strongly follow here (unlike en wiki). I’m strongly advising you to not continue down the path of not following what we do on simple. Every wiki is different (as was explained to you a few times in numerous conversations on this page). Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 12:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organ trade[change source]

I reverted your link (as good faith) on this article back to the country of Iran. The word before it says country therefore it needs to be linked to country. Linking it to the article about healthcare changes the context of what would be expected when clicking the link. Please make sure when you create these links they match what the sentence is saying and not a random article. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The healthcare article has details about the organ trade. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not the point. The sentence clearly indicates it is speaking of the country, not the healthcare of Iran. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is about healthcare. That is the point of the link. Rathfelder (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is about Organ Trade. It is right there in the title. If it was about healthcare, the title would be something like Healthcare in Iran. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The organ trade is part of healthcare. Rathfelder (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, the article is about organ trade. Most of this is done as an illegal activity, by criminal gangs and networks. People get killed got their organs. The legal organ trade (usually by state actors) is only a small part. So, which of the two link destinations makes more sense? Eptalon (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The organ trade is an aspect of healthcare. I think a link to healthcare is more useful, especially as the Iranian article has references giving more detail. Rathfelder (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories self nominating[change source]

Hi. I believe some maintenance categories (like a cleanup for a certain month and year) self-nominate themselves for QD under C1. I removed your QD tag from the category as there is already one there.

Also, you can use twinkle to select the QD and it will format correctly. If you manually put the tag on, then the proper date looks like this “date=February 2024”. You do not put times and time zones in it as it will not render correctly. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do use twinkle. Sometimes it malfunctions. I dont think that self nomination of the complex categories works. Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This particular one has a QD on it from a template. I’m not sure which one. If there is a QD tag on it already, then there is no need for a second one. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the QD tag doesnt work it does need a second one. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It works and it’s there. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It hasnt worked until its deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Rathfelder: It doesn't need a second one, but it might need a null edit for the existing one to show up in the QD category. Try that if you see another one and let us know if it works. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6@Rathfelder - I just looked at Category:Quick deletion requests and it is there. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: That could be because the page was edited. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I’ll see if I find any others as I go through the cats. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Sometimes they show up in Special:UnusedCategories. I think they show up eventually. It might not be worth searching for them. There are lots of more helpful things to spend time on. Empty categories don't hurt anything. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 I wasn’t making it a to-do. I should have clarified I’ll keep an eye (or two) out. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 03:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It certainly works much faster if I put a QD on it. I cant see that 2 nominations are a problem. Rathfelder (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea is if it is broken we need to fix it. I have seen other cats with no articles get deleted without another QD on it. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm all in favour of fixing things that are broken! Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not broken. It's a question of the cache or something. And it isn't putting another QD on it isn't what fixed it: it's editing the page, no matter what you do to it. Even a null edit (saving without making any actual changes) takes care of it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 thank you. That’s why I stated if it is broken. But it still stands we don’t put another QD on it. Just the null edit works then it works :)! Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesnt seem to be working with Category:Pages needing to be simplified from April 2022 Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rathfelder I still see pages in the category. Are you sure you linked the correct one? Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 08:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb sorry I didnt mean that one. Look up a level. Rathfelder (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see it now. I did null edits and they show now. That’s interested. I’ll bring it up on media bugs to let them know. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 08:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something I did notice is when I went and expanded the all articles there were 5 showing with zero entries. After the first null when I saved it I went back and it only showed one cat with a 0 in it. Definitely a software issue I think. So like I said I’ll file a bug and see what they say. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 08:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit summaries[change source]

Hey as a reminder please put in an edit summary of what it is you did. On the article Statistical process control you made changes but left no edit summary. Using the edit summary helps other editors see what was done without having to go to the history. You can read more about why it is important at Wikipedia:Change summary. Thanks for helping edit Wikipedia. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 11:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. On the article Residual-current device I removed your tag for the world wide view. It is not a world wide article as it’s only about the RCD in the US. That is also a tag very rarely used. When it is, it’s a topic across the world (I.e. climate change, sexuality, angels, school years, etc.). When it is country specific it does not get that tag. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we should rename the article. Residual-current devices are not confined to the USA. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is written about the US version. I do not believe any other country (or very few) use the same wattage and amps we use. That’s why we have adapters to buy when we travel to other countries. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other countries have RCDs. There is one in my bathroom in Manchester. The different currents dont affect it. Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did you revert my efforts at simplification? Rathfelder (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While you did make an effort, you used words that are not simple and words that do not mix well and will confuse some readers (like: On the other hand). Not all countries and people learning English know what that means. Secondly, you commented out a very, very large chunk of the article stating (not simple). 3rd I asked you to use the edit summaries so we can easily see what you were doing without having to go through the article. Lastly some things you added were actually more complicated, I believe like two of them from a quick glance.
I’m going to be brutally honest, looking at the fact you fight everything suggested to you (from admins, stewards and editors) you are heading to a place in which you can be blocked for. It is called disruptive changing. I cannot ask you anymore to please follow how we do things and to not do things, as you want to do them your way against everything said to you and you are very argumentative about it. Example I asked you to not place a 2nd QD tag on article, and an Admin told you it’s not needed, but what was your response, it was ok I’ll post a 2nd one on them. It was stated to just do a null edit. Please do not continue this pattern and listen to what we have to say to you and then implement it. It’s being said to you so you understand what we as a community expect from editors on simple as our policies are way different than the regular English Wikipedia. I’m doing my best to be helpful about everything and trying to guide you in the right direction, as are other editors. This is to help you flourish here and become familiar with our wiki. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the words On the other hand. You restored them. I did not comment anything out. That was a previous editor. Largely I inserted wikilinks. That is part of the process of simplification. Please compare the two versions more carefully. Please stop threatening me. I am happy to listen to you or anyone but I expect my questions to be answered. Most editors are happy to do that, but you appear to want me to obey you without question. Rathfelder (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I restored back to the version you had removed the tag. In no way was I threatening you. I’m pointing out an observation. As far as you expecting your questions to be answered, they are being answered, you just don’t seem to like the response you get (no matter who it’s from) and you continue doing it. I in no way want you to “obey me”. I am flat out pointing you directly to our policies and everything else, but even when an admin has told you to not do something, you do it anyway. There are no threats, no implications, no nothing. Just pointing out your editorial errors and to the policies and guidelines we follow. Of which then turn into an argument with you (again regardless of who is telling you). This is not the way we operate on this wiki or even on en wiki (I do not know about other language articles as I don’t go to them). I’ve constantly said please. So I don’t know where you plan on going by saying I’m threatening you or telling you to “obey me” but anyone who reads this will tell you there are no threats in this or any other conversation. As I stated before, we, as a community (very small) are trying to help you. So take it or leave it, however, leaving it (especially if it’s from an admin or higher) may have repercussions. You are provided the tools and the policies on how to do it. Also, I know very well what simplification is so for to imply I do not know as you stated “Largely I inserted wikilinks. That is part of the process of simplification.” Simplification includes a lot more than just wikilinks. But I trust you already know that. I am going to end this here because I have other things to do besides getting in these debates that never seem to end. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have several times said you would call in an admin. You accused me of commenting out a section of the article, and putting in the words "On the other hand" which I did not do". You have invented a definition of a world wide view which is not inline with the policy. Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Only once I said I didn’t have to call in an admin.
2. I apologized and reinstated you previous changes.
3. First off, what policy? Secondly, the examples I used are directly from the category itself. If you look at it, you will see what is in there. There is no invention, but everything that is in that category is very, very general in nature. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we are agreed that my changes to Residual-current device can be restored? I am happy to do some more work simplifying it.
I am not making an issue about the globalisation tag, but the policy, such as it is, is at [Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]. It seems to me that assuming that RCDs only exist in the USA is exactly such bias. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already restored that. I stated so previously. So I looked at the wiki project you stated. It is not a policy (nor is anything in there stating such). Again, if you look at the pages they are working on (or were as it shows semi-active) they are all relatively generic. The ones that are not have a global impact (I.e. wars, conflicts, etc.) Nothing on that project or on the categories are focused on an object but a point in time (best way I can phrase it). I hope that makes it clear. For globalization views, it would have to be something that impacts the majority of the world. The way a current or plug works is not one of them because some areas of countries don’t have electricity. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, could you simplify this article into English and check the spelling and writing? (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) That is not another editors job. You can do what you need to do on the article, but other editors have no requirement to edit any article asked for by another user. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving[change source]

Hey would you be interested in having your talk page archived? It will only archive based on what you determine. You can copy from the top of my talk page or I can assist you in setting yours up. It will help make your page shorter and it is searchable as well. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]