User talk:Rus793/Archive 5

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

Thank You[change source]

Thank you for editing the Benny Banks (rapper) article by finding reliable scources I appreciate that- (talk)

QDs for notability[change source]

Hi, Rus. I just wanted to explain why I've declined some of your QD requests. The WP:QD#A4 option is only for people, groups, companies or websites. If an article doesn't exactly fit a QD option, then it can't be QD'd. Don't feel bad, though. When I first started editing here, I didn't have that detailed understanding of this, either. Let me know if you have anyu questions about this, and thanks for helping get undesirable articles deleted! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In most cases I understood what you were doing. But, for example, a surname is about people so I assumed it was covered by QD. But in a strict sense it could be said to be a thing. Sometimes you just have to see which way it goes. I appreciated your comment at the RfD in response to another comment a particular article should have been QD'd. But it goes to show there are some differences of opinion from time to time as to which case a less than desirable article fits into. So I don't feel bad if an article isn't QD'd and I do understand it's a request. Most aren't declined anyway. While we're on the subject, the Cen surname article has some problems. Both source citations failed verification but for different reasons. The first verifies the statement, but is a personal essay and so not a reliable source. The second does not verify the statement that it is the 235th most common surname in China which, BTW, makes up only .02% of the population. So the point doesn't contribute to notability anyway. I was in the process of finding other sources last evening but was interrupted. I'll get back to it today sometime. If the consensus is to keep, it needs decent source citations. I still think it's a below par stub but I'll go along with the consensus. Thanks for the comment, I do appreciate it. Rus793 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not quite sure what to do with this[change source]

The following are links—interesting links for some of us. They give a sense of what those outside of this wiki think about using (or misusing) Wikipedia. Several are about the English Wikipedia specifically, but also apply to this wiki. I'll leave it here for the time being.

Marketing/using Wikipedia for free advertising[change source]

Guides to getting past Wikipedia editors and patrollers:

Hey Rus! Just so you know I am going to patrol the Super Sentai page just to be on the safe side of things. So if there is any vandalism, I can basically help you and report it. Thanks! ToQ100gou2 (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, now that you're registered, every page you edit or start will be on your watchlist. So in effect you can monitor any changes anyone makes to all of them. It helps if you watch what other editors do with regards to vandalism to pages here. Sometimes a good faith edit looks very similar and editors here need to assume good faith. Other times vandalism is very obvious. You can revert an edit (change it back) but make sure it's not just another way to say something. This is a community effort and most articles are the product of different edits by several editors. Also, an editor here does not own an article he or she started. When an article or change to an article is made, it's with the understanding that the editor gives up all rights to the changes. In addition to seeing a change to an article you contributed to on your watchlist, it also appears on the New changes list (link is on the sidebar banner on the left of your screen). Several editors here monitor that list watching for vandalism. For example, if someone vandalizes a page I started or have made a contribution to, very often it has been fixed by another editor before I even see it. There is nothing a vandal can do to a page that cannot be reverted (often with less effort than the vandal made in the first place). Again, it's a community effort. Welcome to the community. Rus793 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the welcome! I am glad this is a better place than normal Wikipedia, you see...Ryulong (you may know him, and hate him) was a jerk to me and someone recommended this wiki to go on to get away from him. This wiki seems more welcoming and you are way more nicer than he is. Thank you!
Well, I think it's a better wiki. At any rate, let me know (here or on your talk page) when you've practiced citing sources and, if you have any problems or questions. Along with citing sources is finding reliable sources to cite. Let me know if you'd like any help there too. Rus793 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. Thanks!

ToQ100gou2 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing links to redirects[change source]

Rus, it isn't necessary to remove links to redirects, even if they redirect to the page you're removing the links from. If the articles are written, then the links will already be in place.

Besides that, if you unlink something where the link is piped, you need to fix the code that is left behind. For example, in Emerson, Lake & Palmer, the code left behind for one album was "Trilogy (album)|Trilogy'".

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, missed the piped link. I thought circular links were undesirable and needed to be removed. If they can stay, then OK. Rus793 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. I wonder if you were thinking of double redirects. That's when a redirect points to another redirect. Those should be fixed -- in fact there's a special page that lists them. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just thought both were undesirable. OK, Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not remove that section[change source]

I've found you added talk header on x64 talk page, maybe that is your negative response to what I wrote there. I've already cleaned up that page, leaving only one section redirecting to my own page. Please do not remove this only section. Thank you! Janagewen (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was only a gentle reminder of what an article talk page is intended for. There was nothing negative about it. Assuming good faith, I thought you might be unfamiliar with talk page guidelines here. As far as removing the section on the Talk:X64 I don't find anything objectionable here so I wouldn't have any reason to change it or make a request for deletion. I cannot speak for every single editor here, however. In the future, before jumping to any conclusions, please ask the editor if you don't understand something they did or said. One of our guidelines here is Wikipedia:Assume good faith (AGF). Another is Wikipedia:Be kind. BTW, putting the information on your talk page was an excellent idea. You put some work and thought into it, you should keep it. Anyway, good luck with your editing here and if you have any questions, please ask them at Simple talk. Rus793 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mandy Moore album articles[change source]

My album articles were recently redirected onto Mandy Moore. This is extremely embarrassing to me! Why were my articles classified as not notable? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not all were, but of those that were redirected it was because there was no indication of notability—as an album. It was based on this recent proposal at Simple Talk: Our recent spate of new album stubs: a proposal. If you can establish an album was notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music) then simply edit the redirect back to an article adding the source citations. I went ahead and added a discography section to Mandy Moore. If you simply overlooked the source citations (showing notability) there is no reason to be embarrassed. I forget stuff too—editors have a lot to remember. BTW, you've been doing a very nice job of wikifying and citing your sources lately. It makes patrolling your articles much easier than most. If I can help with anything just ask. Rus793 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@September 1988: I see where you reverted So Real and added that it went gold, adding a citation to the Billboard article. That's what I was talking about—sort of. I couldn't find where the article supported that statement (that it went gold). The Billboard article said:"Although the album spawned a Top 40 hit with "Candy" and went platinum within three months, such success..." OK, in my opinion this is enough to establish the album was notable—going Platinum and having a hit single. But your statement in the article needs to reflect that more accurately. I'm trying to help you here. When you write a statement in an article and cite a source, that source has to directly support the information as it is presented. So if the article says the album went platinum, then saying it went gold is not completely accurate. So if you could make that change to the statement it would be much better for the article. Also, it's always better to have two (or more) reliable source citations in an article. Without source citations showing notability a subject usually does not deserve its own article. But you found the source (or sources) showing that it was. That's all you needed to do. Rus793 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect categories[change source]

Hi, Rus. I noticed that you added some redirect categories to articles recently. For example, you added Category:Redirects to sections to So Real. Thanks for helping categorize redirect pages! You probably didn't know, but the redirect categories aren't added directly to articles the way you did. They are added using templates such as Template:R to section. Each redirect category should have a note on it saying which template adds it. If you see one of those categories that doesn't have such a note, you can add a note or let me know and I'll find the template(s). Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

speedy keep[change source]

--Chimcdf (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)(i belive my article on [[yunggg rhymes should be kept it contains the right information which links to the artist)Reply[reply]

The {{{wait}} template should be under the QD template on the article so an administrator sees it. I moved it for you. Your reply on the talk page should include why you think the article meets our notability requirements. Please read the Wikipedia:Notability guideline before answering. An administrator will make the determination soon. Thank you. Rus793 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a problem to have two sources for one thing. What's wrong with including a source that's available online? The source I added was from the enwiki article: in what way did it "fail verification"? Besides that, your latest edit changed Smith's birthplace from Tacoma to Seattle. That conflicts with the source and the enwiki article. Did you maybe revert back to a point before the city was corrected? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's not a problem to have two sources for the same thing if they both verify the statement. That was not the case here. The source taken from enwiki is a duplicate of a named reference source already used six times in this article; the Seattle Times article by Judith Blake. As of this writing it is reference [4]. The source copied from enwiki failed verification on this particular statement because it did not verify he was born on January 22, 1939. The text-source integrity was broken when the place was changed to Tacoma. The Current Biography Yearbook said "Seattle" as do others in the article. Apparently while I was editing, the statement was split between two sources, but the verification problem remained. Two sources I used elsewhere in the article indicated Tacoma. One said he was born in Tacoma, the other that he was a native of Tacoma. Tacoma is in the greater Seattle area so I'm not sure if some sources are just being very general and others are being specific. But the birthplace can be removed if it's a problem. I just went with the majority of sources. There is nothing at all wrong with using reliable sources available online—six of the seven I cited were online sources. I use them all the time along with print sources. When improving this article, I found enough sources that I didn't even have to look at the enwiki article. But in looking now, I don't see a conflict. The enwiki version only says: "Smith was born on January 22, 1939" with no source citation. Ours says: "Smith was born in Seattle, Washington on January 22, 1939.[1]". Rus793 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, you're right. I think I was confusing birthplace with the place a person is a native of. People are born all the time in hospitals that aren't in the city where they/their parents actually live, so I see how being a native of Tacoma doesn't mean he was born there. Thanks for your time on this. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes on Jeff Smith and The Frugal Gourmet[change source]

I saw that you rolled back some changes to these articles (at least the edit summaries appear to be the type used by the rollback function). As you know, the rollback function is to be used only for reverting vandalism. The changes in question did not appear to me to be vandalism. Am I missing something? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were bad edits in most cases. Incorrect dates that broke text-source integrity, I think one changed 'graduated' to attended (when the subject did in fact graduate). Just trying to remember off the top of my head. Small things that in most cases added wrong information, degraded the article or didn't make any sense. The The rollback function didn't offer a change comment window. Also the user given a final warning last week by another editor to stop making bad changes. So it's redundant to keep giving final warnings threatening to block the user when the user just keeps making bad edits. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, what happened to the edit comment window when you revert (rollback 1 edit) an edit? I though we had one. But lately I haven't seen one. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With rollback, you can't enter a comment. Since rollback is supposed to be used only for reverting vandalism, I guess no comment is considered necessary. You can always use undo or "restore this version" to undo vandalism -- those both let you give a comment. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Along these same lines, please be sure that the issues with these articles aren't just content disputes. Several of the changes that you undid and warned about seem to me to be just disagreements about whether the content belongs in the articles. A user would not be blocked for that without a consensus about it, so the final warning you issued might not hold. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The content disputes you refer to aren't with me, they're with the sources used (and others not used). Thanks to all the activity on these two articles, I've had the chance to read and re-read most of the sources several times cleaning up the article. The reasons for the warnings I gave are intentionally inserting bad information (interspersed with uncited and often unhelpful information), deleting content of other editors without giving any reason in an edit comment and repeatedly breaking text-source integrity (corrupting existing source citations). The user has also removed source citations, copied and falsely attributed citations to other statements in articles, repeatedly made simple sentences complex, removed links and added duplicate and sometimes conflicting information in various places in the article at the same time. I don't believe I gave the user any warnings for creating bad pages, that was done by other trusted editors. When the QD A3 was declined for Jeff Smith, I improved and sourced the article. Information I found also applied to the Frugal Gourmet article so I added sources there and improved it a bit. You may not have noticed but I added source citations to some of the user's additions—when I could find verifying sources. But I spent more than a little time looking. I also took three of this user's deleted support articles, edited and sourced them. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for doing all that! I found another case recently where references didn't support the statements they purported to. I hope this isn't a trend. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statutory rape[change source]

Since statutory rape and age of consent cover the same topic basically, I do not agree with them being separate articles. Could they be merged?-- (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see some problems in doing this. To keep this simple for readers, including children and adults new to the English language, I think they probably need to be kept as separate articles. Also, one is a stub, the other an article. Looking at the enwiki article on statutory rape they have a full article, so the stub certainly has full article potential. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there should be a reference to sexual maturity in the statutory rape article. Not many jurisdictions use that as a factor. Russia is one of the few that does. Nayarit in Mexico is another. But in most states puberty is not a factor, for example in France the legal age is 15, so even if an adult (15 or older) were still prepubescent, it would still be legal for an older person to have to sex with him/her, but it would not be legal to have sex with say, a 12-14 year old, even if they had already completed puberty. So sexual maturity is not usually a factor in these laws. --FDR (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are others; Bolivia and Pakistan came up when researching for age of consent. But like the mentally incompetent part, not every country or state mentions it. So you're right, not too many laws mention it, per se. The main idea is to write an article that explains the main concepts of the subject without getting mired down in too much detail. Also, law is a complicated subject and keeping those subjects simple is much harder. Take a look at the last paragraph in the enwiki article Statutory rape. It doesn't treat puberty as a requirement of a few country's statutes, but more generally. Also puberty or sexual maturity is a concept behind many laws around the world even if they don't mention it in their statutes. Several medical sources say girls are increasingly entering puberty at younger ages. The laws are taking this into consideration. But, those facts may also lead the article into more complex areas. So you need to balance the two. If you're going to help improve the article, see where the sources take you. User:Rus793 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock[change source]

Hi, could you review my unblock appeal, I'm FDR. I'm not editing wikipedia simple English at all. I just wanted to email you to see if I could appeal to you. I've not used any accounts other than FDR and NewCleanStart recently. And I only used NewCleanStart to make three edits. I have one other account, but I have not used it in several years, its called RJR3333. I also had another account,, that I never used here but I used on another wiki. Since I never used it here I don't think it should count as abuse. I only used it on simple English wiktionary, which is not a wikipedia, but a kind of dictionary, and has nothing to do with this site. -- (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry; there is nothing I can do. You really need to talk only to the administrators. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no sources notice on "Man Trouble"[change source]

A no sources notice was stamped on "Man Trouble" in spite of the fact references were put into Other websites on the article. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, that's a good question. At the time I patrolled the article there were no sources, specifically inline sources which are preferable. It doesn't say no references—that would be a more general term. There were links in 'Other websites', but these aren't source citations. The Wikipedia:Guide to layout, under 'Other websites' says: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources can be linked here." A good example is the IMDb link. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, here or at enwiki, but it is used fairly often on articles of this type under the 'Other websites' section. If I can make a suggestion, the Rotten Tomatoes link is a reliable source and you could easily convert it from an 'Other website' to an inline source citation. Box Office Mojo is an IMDb site. There is a difference of opinion at enwiki as to its reliability and I haven't seen anything here about it. You could use it as a source and if anyone objects they can change it to another source. Or, you could avoid that gray area and just use a different source for an inline source citation. A couple of reliable sources would be: or . I know you said you'd like to be an administrator some day. If becoming a content editor (editors who create and improve articles) is something you'd like to do in the process, there might be enough information in the sources (and the two links above) to 'flesh' out the article a bit more. But once the problem is fixed the 'no sources' tag can be removed by any editor. Good luck in your editing, User:Rus793 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standard conditions for temperature and pressure[change source]

Hello Rus793, I have rewritten the article Standard conditions for temperature and pressure, and removed the QD tag. Please nominate at RfD if you want it deleted. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject isn't one I'm very familiar with or I'd have considered improving it myself. I was trying to make the point to a new user not to copy & paste enwiki articles or sections of articles here. But you improved it so there is need to RfD it at all. Thanks Eptalon User:Rus793 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that we now have two articles, so we need to merge them... --Eptalon (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your change to this article, because I think winning a Grammy Award shows notability, even if the article isn't referenced. Was there some other reason you redirected the article? --~~

There was no proof offered for a grammy award, which, by the way, is claimed for a single on the album; not the album itself. If the album is not notable by extension of the artist's notability, then it seems reasonable an album is likewise not notable by extension of a notable single. I redirected the article based on your proposal (31 December 2014) of redirecting to the artists page when there were no sources and/or nothing to show notability. Also, the user (or users if more than one person) in question has been repeatedly reverting the redirects without discussion, on this and several other albums. Unfortunately, reverting this redirect now seems to be sending a mixed message that confuses, if not negates, the warnings already issued. I found on at least one of the other similarly (and repeatedly) redirected albums an unsubstantiated claim of notability. The time I spent looking seems to have been wasted. I didn't have the time to chase this one down when I redirected it, but as it is in the history, anyone researching the claim can add reliable source citation anytime and revert it back to an article. If they are verified the article should stay. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would negate the earlier warnings if the page content were the same, but more info has been added, and that info does claim notability. According to the enwiki article, the album itself won a Grammy and a Latin Grammy, and had notable chart performance. I can see refs online for the Grammy Awards, but I can't add them right now because it's too difficult to do on my tablet. Unless you'd like to add some, I'll take care of it later when I'm on my laptop. In the meantime, let's leave the page as an article, not a redirect. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll have time in a few minutes to go get the references establishing notability and add them to the article. I'm on a PC so it's a bit easier. If you can, you might want to explain the difference to the editor/editors (can't tell if it's one or several, but they're doing the exact same thing) so he/she/they don't continue to revert other editors' redirects without any comments. Your explanations are often better than mine. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk)

Beth Tweddle[change source]

Hi, Rus. Thanks for improving this article. You probably didn't know, but the "athlete" categories are specifically for track and field people. People who do other kinds of sports go under "sportspeople". A while back we did some major changes to organize the categories that way. In American English, we often call all sportspeople "athletes", so it can be confusing. I changed this article, so you don't have to. Let me know if you have any questions.

Text source integrity?[change source]

What does that mean?--Lucifergavemeag (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text-source integrity means the statement in the text is fully supported by the source citation. When that changes, by adding something to the statement that is not fully supported by the source, then the source citation is corrupted. Also, by adding information to a sentence, it often changes a simple sentence (consisting of a subject and a verb) into a complex (or compound) sentence. You can certainly add another sentence following the sourced statement to add more information to the article. If you have any questions just ask or post the question to Wikipedia:Simple talk and someone will respond. I'll put a welcome message on your talk page with links you should find very helpful. Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It states here, "It states that for any given statement, there are four possibilities i.e. it might be true (and true only), false (and false only), both true and false, or neither true nor false." That was in the source. What I said was that in cantuskoti, statements could sometimes be both true and false. How was that not faithful to the source?--Lucifergavemeag (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's true. But it is also a different situation. This later edit did not break a source. I sourced (and simplified) the statement you added to the article with a new source citation. The part I edited out seemed confusing to me. It did not show the two concepts are similar—it could be read to say they are the same. I'm trying to think like a reader new to English or a younger reader without a complete command of English. The link to Catuskoti (which you created) serves to explain what it is. Also, the source citation to the article (How does catuskoti apply to everyday life?) explains more if the reader chooses to follow up on the source citation. So I felt it wasn't necessary to explain it in this article. But that was just my opinion, all things considered. If you see a better way, go ahead improve it and add a short explanation—if you feel it won't confuse the issue. I hope this answered your question. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

notability notice on Anne Braden[change source]

For what reason was the notability tag added to the article Anne Braden. Is the article not notable? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Angela,
The tag was added because, as written, there is little indication of notability. Braden wasn't a newspaper worker, she was a journalist. She wrote for various newspapers she didn’t sell them on the corner (one impression of a newspaper worker). She was also a dedicated long-time civil rights activist. To me the word 'supporter' also seemed ambiguous. A supporter could be perceived as being a member of the silent majority for example; someone who approved but otherwise remained uninvolved. Just the first paragraph of the source you cited says why she’s notable. You could use any of that information and cite it. Besides, her's is also an interesting story. She and her husband were largely responsible for a Kentucky law being ruled unconstitutional. A house she bought for another couple was dynamited. In fact many things she did or was involved in were notable. I tagged it mostly because I didn't have time to change it and intended to come back and improve it later. If you'd like to reword it and perhaps even add a citation or two that would be greatly appreciated. Let me know. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have received a barnstar[change source]

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

Thank you for helping to make many of my established articles! Keep up the good work! Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Qwertyxp2000, I appreciate it very much. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

effects of smoking RFD[change source]

Hi Rus793, you made the right decision on putting the article up for an RFD. It was marginal as to whether or not it fitted the QD criteria, and it is usually better to be careful. I had actually looked at the article at the same time, and decided it could just fit the QD criteria, and therefore deleted it. Meanwhile, you had done the work in setting up an RFD. Sometimes these things are difficult to decide. Keep up the good work, it is much appreciated.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, that was nice of you to say. I understood right away why you QD'd the page. The main thing was it accomplished the intended purpose. Thank's again User:Rus793 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elgin Center: QD declined[change source]

Hello Rus 793,

you nominated Elgin Center for quick deletion (as "complex article from another Wikipedia"). I have removed the QD tag, as the artricle is only like one day old, and being difficult to read should not be taken as a reason for deletion. If you see that there is little work on the article (as in: sipmlification), I invite you to put it up for discussed deletion.

All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notification. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cookies ?[change source]

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Thank you and all the best. Fylbecatulous talk 19:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will enjoy them, thank you. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Rus, I don't think this article shows notability. I just moved the info that's about her family, not her, into a separate section, and the part that's left about her doesn't say anything that seems notable. (You know, I'm sure, that a person isn't considered notable just because she has notable relatives.)

Besides that, the text hasn't really been simplified from the enwiki article. Do you plan to simplify it? If not, it might get quickly deleted. Let me know what you plan to do with this article. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a half-dozen interruptions this evening. She is actually quite notable. I'll get more on her before I quit for the night. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, sounds good. I know what you mean about interruptions! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! You seem to have changed the birth date of Mariano Taccola. While I have not gone to original sources, various Wikipedia articles on him all give the date I took from the English Wikipeida article. If You did in fact change the date, with-out noting or explaining the change, the why did You do so? Kdammers (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kdammers,
First, I can't speak to why other wiki articles might use a particular date, some may have simply copied others. When I first patrolled the article I added source citations—noted in the edit comment. One reliable source gave the date as 1381. The book used city records from that time period. I used the date given in a source, which is correct practice and, I thought, would not need explaining. But, you're asking a very good question so I'll explain my reasoning. Since the date of his birth would have been "old style", falling before 1582 (when the calendar was changed from Julian to Gregorian), a discrepancy between sources of one year is not at all uncommon. And in fact, both may be correct, depending day and month, and on which dating system was being used to determine the date. If backdating from the current system, the year could be calculated as 1382. But if using contemporary or near-contemporary records, using the dating of that time, 1381 could also be correct. Another very good possibility is that the date of 1382 may have been calculated using another (unknown unless the author explained) date. A medieval date discrepancy between sources of a single year is usually, but not always, due to the OS/NS difference. It could depend on several factors. Here's a hypothetical example of computing a date by counting back from another: a source found information that Taccola was born 70 years before Leonardo da Vinci (born 15 April 1452). Assuming da Vinci's date is correct, that it was 70 years and assuming Taccola was born between January 1 and April 15 of the year, then subtracting 70 from 1452 would get you 1382. In this example we don't know how carefully the date was calculated but it is done way this way far too often. The source I found did say 1381 and did say it got his information from city records. I can't change it and still keep that source citation. If another source was used, it would have to be an equally reliable, or better source. I don't remembering finding another reliable source for 1382 so I didn't see a problem with using the one I had. Sometimes dates such as this one are shown as 1381/1382 (which usually indicates OS/NS). But we don't know that for a certainty, it's just the most likely reason. Since other wiki's articles are not considered reliable sources, it doesn't really matter what they have, other than mining one of them for a source to follow up on. But I can dig into it deeper if you want me to. Or we can leave it as-is since it is properly sourced from a reliable source (and we know something about how it was determined). Let me know. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not thinking of this at the time, but in checking, the en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (using WP:FOLLOW) states: "Dates before 15 October 1582 (when the Gregorian calendar was adopted) are normally given in the Julian calendar." It goes on to say we should not convert between Julien and Gregorian. I was aware it was probably a Julian date given where and when he lived. Another thing I didn't think to check at the time was whether other reliable sources also used the date of 1381. Going back now a quick search turned up 8 or more books citing his date of birth as 1381. Even if I had noticed it at the time I'm not a big fan of "piling-on" sources to prove a point. One quality source is usually all that's needed. Again, I'm willing to explore the question further if you'd like. Also, I've been thinking about the point you raised that I didn't explain further. Perhaps an explanatory note about dates might be a good idea; stating the dates are Old Style and used the Julian calendar. What do you think? User:Rus793 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) If the issue is Old Style and New Style dates, there are some templates that might be useful:
--Auntof6 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have done due diligence. I was asking because of the discrepancy and had not seen any citations for the DoB or PoB in the other Wikipedias. I just wanted to be sure that our entry was correct (this is important) and adequately supported (this is policy). I have noticed that it is a common practice not to footnote this information. We at SE can do better, as You have shown. Thanks for doing the leg-work. Kdammers (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do see, how-ever, that the Spanish Wikipedia has the 1382 date footnoted. The reference it uses is one we have: Lawrence Fane, "The Invented World of Mariano Taccola", Leonardo (2003), Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 135–143. I don't have access to an academic library, so I can't check it. Is it one You checked?Kdammers (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went to JSTOR and read the article. The date is only mentioned twice and no explanation or footnote is given indicating where the date came from. So it really doesn't help very much. There were a couple other useful points though. The source cited in the article (Moon) does say he was born in Siena. Moon's book is available as a preview at Google Books, BTW. Fane's article mentions Siena several times but does not say he was born there. Actually, beyond what I mentioned regarding OS vs. NS dating (and the date the Moon uses was very probably OS), there is the problem that dates of birth were not generally recorded at this time. Keeping such information would not come to Italy until the recording of vital information by church records which got started during the Italian renaissance. The average person was not aware of the month and day (sometimes not even the current year). They measured time by seasons and the keeping of festivals and feast days. Taccola was a city employee and likely the source for his own birth year (he may not have known the exact day and month). Notwithstanding the at least 8 or 9 print sources found earlier that gave 1381, the article does list a References and Notes section on p. 143. There are 15 references and notes. I could run them down or pass them on to you to look into. However, given such dates were not recorded originally; it may not turn up a satisfactory answer. When researching sources for an article, I sometimes read a lot of information. I do remember reading a statement that all that was known of him came from city records. Unfortunately it was probably one I didn’t cite. If you’re curious enough to pursue the matter further, I’d be happy to help though. I just wanted you to understand some of the problems this involved. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may have something. In mining the sources used for Fane's article, I turned up some interesting information. Taccola was baptized on 4 February 1382. Typically baptism was within a few days to a few weeks after birth. Baptisms were recorded while births of the time period typically weren't. Now, that places the birth probably in January or perhaps December, but again, which year? Is that the actual year of the original record or has it been converted to modern (NS) dating? A family might wait more than a few days, there was no hard set rule that I know of until a few years after Taccola's birth (then it was 8 days after birth). There were other customs to consider, making it difficult to know exactly how long after birth he was baptized. But one thing is interesting, baptisms were usually performed on a Sunday. February 4, 1382 was a Monday. However, in 1381 it fell on a Sunday. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote to the MUSEO GALILEO - Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza in Florence. Here is the response I got from Iolanda Rolfo:

Dear Mr. Dammers, thank you for writing us. The date of birth of Mariano di Iacopo, called Taccola in our archive is 1381; also a good italian Encyclopedia, with a rich bibliography has 1381; 4th of february. Here the link: .... The link has this: "Nacque a Siena il 4 febbr. 1381 da Iacopo, viticoltore, e da madonna Nefra (Bacci)." It is in the article on MT written by Gerardo Doti (2008). The article has an extensive cumulative bibliography, but none of the items is older than the nineteenth century. I wonder about the "coincidence" that MT is said (in these two sources) to have been born exactly one year before he was said to have been baptized (Your mention). Kdammers (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, this needs some more attention. In trying to accurately stick to what the sources said, I created some confusion. Mixing OS and NS dates isn't going to work here despite any number of explanatory footnotes. If using several sources, some are going to use NS dating and others will use OS. There are two issues in the date here. One is the year and that's explained by OS/NS dating. The other is the day and month—whether it is the date of his birth or the date of his baptism. I strongly suspect 4 February is his date of baptism. From social histories of Italy, the customary first mention in records would have been his baptism, not his birth. Birth records were not kept until at least a century later. The two do agree on the year so I edited the article to just use the year for his birth. I think that's the best solution. Thanks for the encyclopedia link and the information. User:Rus793 (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help with editing articles. You are an experienced old-timer here, and I would like to ask you one technical question. I noticed that Template:Cite book may behave differently. One time it works properly, e.g. Alexander Bulgakov. The other time it breaks the lines: Samuil Blekhman. Can this problem addressed and fixed? Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've run into that problem before myself. I don't know if there's a fix to the template yet. I do have a workaround though. It's probably easier just to show you (see the article). I copied the citation in normal view. In change view, I pasted the copied version over the malfunctioning template, and added quotation marks around the title. Then I saved it. Normally that's all you need to do to work around that particular template problem. But in this instance you had the title linked. So, in the second edit, I created the link to the archived copy. Just review what I did in normal view and change view. If for any reason this doesn't work for you, just revert the two changes. It works the same when using the citebook template for an inline citation. Or, you can just write the citation manually if you're comfortable doing it that way. User:Rus793 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) However, don't feel you have to fix a lot of these. The problem will eventually be fixed, and in the long run we'd rather have the templates on the pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank both of you for comments and suggestions. I will use the suggested workaround. And hope the template will be fixed one day. I see that somehow the template works well if inserted as a note (using <ref> tags) and malfunctions if used as a stand-alone inline citation. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found a temporary solution for the malfunctioning template. :) Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volleyball[change source]

Rus, it feels like you're biting a newbie. I've requested in a couple of different spots that you give him a little time. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not biting at all and I was just answering you on another page. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help needed[change source]

Hey Rus: I need help making movie articles meet the notability standards of Simple English. I need help on Grumpier Old Men, Cat Chaser, Chances Are and Cyborg. Help me please. I'm having a hard time proving notability. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response on your talk page User:Rus793 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Context tag[change source]

I've seen you add the {{context}} tag to articles like Senlis, Oise and Russia national volleyball team. What more do you think is needed in stub articles that short? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tag was to encourage editors to improve the articles, although, I see you've since deleted the Russia national volleyball team stub. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a better tag for that would be {{expand}}, although being a stub sort of implies that an article needs expanding. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Javad Shorab article[change source]

Do not bother with the width of the paper, the brush Javad Shorab source link and let her pop singers.-- (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please recheck for notability[change source]

Do the articles Consenting Adults, Woman in Gold, The Longest Ride and Get Hard claim notability now? I've worked my butt off to get articles to claim notability! Angela Maureen (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, they don't show notability just yet. They are improved and that's good. Auntof6 and StevenJ81 have both pointed out the importance of reading and understanding the Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline. Steven keeps a copy in a sandbox, I have it bookmarked and I'm pretty sure Aunt has it memorized. If you can't do the latter, then I suggest one of the former. First, there wouldn't be a guideline for movies if the general notability guideline (GNG) was enough. So it is important. You write movie articles so this is one you should get to get to know. Not only read the guideline, read all the footnotes. Once you do understand Wikipedia's notability guideline for films, these articles or others like them won't be any problem for you.
With these four movies I'd be looking at: "1. the film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". It's under the 'Other evidence of notability' section. In the articles you started, you need to mention at least two nationally known critics and something of what they said of the article. Both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have links to these full length reviews. Always cite the full-length review articles. I'd also cite pages like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes for other information in an article, but include at least two critics. Look again at Grumpy Old Men; it has five major reviews. Nationally known critics typically write for major publications. The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Post and Variety are widely read. I know you worked hard on these, but that's what good editors do. Good stubs and good articles take some time to compile. For future articles keep in mind Aunt's suggestion to write about movies that won Academy Awards. Movies that win major awards are almost always notable. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Woman in Gold show any notability now? Can you please check that and King of New York? Angela Maureen (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, Woman in Gold: you have Roger Ebert, that's one nationally known critic. You need a minimum of one more. Say how they liked it or quote something (short) they said that sums up the (full-length) review article you are citing. Metacritic is providing several to choose from. Click the link to the full-length review, read it, and cite it. A couple more would be better.
In the King of New York, you again have one and you included a short quote—this is good. You mentioned Roger Ebert but nothing of what he said or a quote. Again, a third or fourth would be even better. You seem to have the idea here, just expand on it. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noe Vazquez[change source]

Hi Rus793, I have declined the QD as there was some notability claimed. This could be an article to send to rfd for a more detailed review.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

writing dmy style[change source]

You seem to always use dmy (for example: 28 August 2016). Why's that, Rus793? Do you live somewhere outside the United States and North America? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I live in the US. It's probably force of habit from using certain types of programs. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

could you please look over my timofey mozgov article? --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Thahouseusers2015:. I did look at it and a couple of others you submitted. It needs more information and should have inline source citations since it is also a Biography of a living person. The same is true of Stephen Curry. There is a source citation (bare url but it's a good start) in Andre Igoudala. All three could use more information. You have the basic formatting skills. You can either get information from the English Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia) or from reliable sources you can find with an Internet search. David Blatt is an example of a stub article. It now has enough information to tell who he is, it has source citations and an image. In this case the information was copied and attributed from the enwiki article, then simplified and wikified. If there is anything specific you need to know or need help with let me know. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elgin Baylor[change source]

started needs more info though. tagged it with under construction. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good. The Under construction tag will buy you some time but, you need to show some activity. If no improvements are made in a reasonable time, the tag can be removed and the page can be patrolled as-is or improved by other editors. As we don't have nearly as many editors as enwiki, those we have are kept fairly busy. The best way to introduce a new stub or article here is to complete it in a sandbox, then copy it to a new page. If you don't already have a sandbox you can create one easily using the link in Wikipedia:Sandbox. A sandbox of your own is the best place to work on an article as you have it to yourself. You can invite other editors to review something you are working on to get suggestions or find out how to do something. Most registered editors will help you if asked. Good luck with your projects. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no clue on how to do that so I will continue to try and work on it. Thank you. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you mean create your own sandbox, there is a link that will create one for you automatically at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Sandbox article. Otherwise, I can create one for you if you like. An administrator can move the Elgin Baylor article to your sandbox (once you have one) if you want to do that. Or, as I mentioned above, the UC tag gives you some time to work on building it into a good stub or full article. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can we disamb this entry? thank you. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you could create it. It has to be more than a few words or a few links to be considered. Enwiki has one that could be copied here (with attribution). But articles or stubs that are too short can be quickly deleted. BTW, you still have an under construction tag on Elgin Baylor. I left three sources for you on your talk page, if you want to improve the article. Otherwise remove the UC tag. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thahouseusers2015 and @Rus792:: We don't usually need to attribute a dab page, because they shouldn't have enough text to needs it. Also, the minimum number of entries for a dab page is two or three. If there are only two things that need to be disambiguated, you look at whether there is a primary meaning. If there is, we can handle the disambiguating with a hatnote on that page. If there isn't a primary meaning, then a dab page makes more sense. If there are three or more things that need disambiguating, then a dab page is definitely OK. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A dab from another wiki still has authors who did some work to put it together. Giving them credit is what attribution does. I understand that an average dab page (many list pages also) may not have enough text to require it. I'm just saying do it whenever you copy any type of page from another Wikipedia; it's a good habit to get into. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bobbi Kristina Brown[change source]

why did you remove it? --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is already an explanation on your talk page. Also I added information on how you can add biographical information to the article with an example. If you have any questions about this, ask at the thread on your talk page. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need a wiki mentor. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I can help but remember other patrollers and administrators will help you also. First point, it's great you improved an article that was clearly vandalism—Christopher Browning. But don't remove a QD request tag. Make the improvement and leave the tag; an administrator will see you've improved it and will decide. As it is now, and since I placed the tag, in this case leave it off. Second point, if you can make an improvement then don't tag the article (for example the wikify tag, no sources tag, etc.). I noticed you've copied the information from enwiki. To do this completely (there are a couple of more steps) see the page Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. It gives complete instructions including attribution. You copied from the article. It's better to go into edit mode and copy the code. This way you have a head start on wikifying (adding links to words not in Basic English, mostly nouns). For example, copying the code there I would get:
Christopher Robert Browning (born May 22, 1944) is an American historian of the Holocaust. Browning received his bachelor's degree from Oberlin College in 1968 and his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1975.
See, you would have been halfway towards wikifying the article, although you'll quickly learn to wikify it yourself. But you would have also picked up a source citation in this case. Note that it's wikified for enwiki, not simplewiki. But a large number of links there work here. Those that don't we look to see if the link is here under another similar name or allow it to be a red link. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

correct entry from wp --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you're new submissions are coming with more information in them. You're also getting the hang of some of the editing we do. Keep it up! User:Rus793 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for tidying this up for me. I was a bit surprised at some of the links you put in; I'm not used to how simple things should be here. And I apologize for the state of the references; they were as I found them in the English WP article and (again) I wasn't sure what to do with them. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. The pages copied from enwiki often need simplifying and more links (as you noticed) before they are cleared from the New pages list. There are several patrollers and administrators here who patrol new pages to insure they are in keeping with our policies and guidelines. The object is to use simple sentences (as much as possible) and link words (usually nouns) not in Basic English (also called Simple English) for our readers. Most are younger or are new to the English language. Thank you for your contributions and I hope you enjoy editing here. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

morning[change source]

good morning --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Good morning. Thank you for the cookies! Did you see the last couple of messages on your talk page (you can reply there if you have any questions)? I hope you'll give the suggestions a try. BTW, if it isn't obvious, the 'Awards' section in Jim Lehrer came from searching Google for a bio on him (actually found several). I picked the best one that was not published by PBS. Is there anything in the Jim Lehrer article (as it is currently) you think you can't do? Be glad to help if there is. I hope you'll give creating a couple of support articles a try so as to properly clean up red links. Yes, I know, they'll have red links too. Anyway, your talk page is on my watch list so anything you reply to there I'll see. Thanks again. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ken Ham[change source]

I don't understand. My edits weren't POV and I provided reliable sources. You in fact told me to do so, so you have to understand I'm a little confused on why you reverted my changes. It's directly published by AiG; if you'd like, I can reference their website instead. Someone else included Bill Nye's objections in there, so it's fair to include Ken Ham's answers. That's not POV. Thank you for your time. SA319 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we can clear all that up. I started a discussion on Talk:Ken Ham if you'd like to join in. We can also discuss basic rules here on your page, already started. I think you'll find this will all make sense to you. We welcome new editors and always want to get you off to a good start. BTW, if you could wait for a reply before editing your comments it would result in fewer edit conflicts. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a reply to your comment on my talk page. SA319 (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

vandal enforcer[change source]

that's what i will be focusing on.

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

--Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good. If you're going to do that it will help you to become familiar with the rules (guidelines and policies). You want to understand them and how they apply in various situations. You could read one a day or so. Then if you had questions ask. It helps me to reread them. Several of us worked on a help page for notability. It will make more sense to you after you read the main guideline WP:N (shortcut for Wikipedia:Notability). The help page is at Help:N. Since I noticed you tagged a page for notability I thought that was a good place to start. Dealing with vandalism is sometimes trying so read the Behavioural guidelines also. Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it was agreed on a previous discussion that copying basic verifiable factual data from one wiki to another is allowed, and does not count as QD A3. However, I see no independent evidence that he is notable, so that might be grounds for proposing it for discussion. I mean, he's notable on his own YouTube page... Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I withdrew the QD. I'll take a close look at the sources. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) I added the iw links at WikiData. The article on enwiki has a whole boatload of sources. Enough of them are facially reliable (The New Yorker, Entertainment Weekly) that I think he's going to pass. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found and read an article from The New York Times. Not so sure about this just yet. The article clearly complements him but still places him in up-and-comer status. I read several others—is rap weirdo a complement? I've found some reliable sources, but not for anything that helps notability yet. The sources the stub contained when copied from enwiki all failed verification so I replaced them. Just have to sort through all the chaff but I'll keep looking. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went through quite a few sources at enwiki. Typical mix of good, bad and file not found. When I see nine stacked up for the same remark, that piques my interest. But after reading several I'd say he appears to meet Notability (music). Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:QD#A3 addresses copying from other Wikipedias without simplifying. It has nothing to do with how basic, verifiable, or factual the information is. The only mitigating factor would be if the copied information were simple enough already. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've simplified the article already but thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wrong Koven. --DonaldFrederickLandry (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought this one was a little too easy to find. But as he's notable I'll finish adding source citations. I'll fix the redirect shortly and restore the stub. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a valid website you should join not to promote or anything. --DonaldFrederickLandry (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind. This includes talk pages. I'm sure you weren't aware of it, but now that you are please don't repeat the offer on this wiki. Thank you. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill Farmer[change source]

Thanks for your message, First of, just to let you know, I'm not a sock at all. I've been doing research and I was only correcting some mistakes in the article, because Bill started voicing Goofy in 1987, not 1986. And I'm sorry for not providing a source. My bad. FrozenFan2 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working to upgrade a couple of sources now. Two sources now (see the article in 10-15 minutes), say 1986. One is a D23 (Disney) source; the other is an article in the Baltimore Sun. If you'd list your source(s) in the talk page I promise to follow up and check it or them against the two already in the article. It should be resolvable. But editors can't make changes to to remarks that are source cited (called breaking text-source integrity), or removal of that source without giving good reason. At this point, if you've been the only editor changing the date, we can probably resolve this in the article's talk page. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, thanks, that's why I keep finding it so confusing of the information. When I did research, several sites say he started voicing him in 1987 while others say 1986 he started, it's really confusing, but thanks for understanding. Even his wife Jennifer, sites say he married her in 1985 while this one you added says 1984 he married her. But I will discuss them on the talk page. FrozenFan2 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the talk page is best. Just using the best sources available usually settles any issues. I'm not a fan of any particular date for either event, just those dates that can be proved using reliable source citations. Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Learn Sth.[change source]

Hey, dude

Learn something before you mess up with .net framework, ok? Please tell me who owns the Who has the right to down-break the articles on it? Or let me mail something to the creator of to get an answer about your behaviour? enough! go away to the places you should and you need! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2015

To repeat, I reverted your edit because you deleted a number of red links. Red links are opportunities for new articles and we do not systematically delete them just for the sake of appearance. To answer your question, please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Also, please sign (~~~~) your posts. Thank you. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To tell you frankly, the articles you messed up are just like shits! Sorry! But allow me to be frank! Please just like what you all dealt with user Janagewen, remove all those shithole articles, including .net framework, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2015