User talk:Rus793/Archive 7

Archived 1/20/2016

vandals

there are too many. --Fdena (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I still want to be apart of this wiki but there are too many vandals. --Fdena (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fdena: Is it a big problem at Wikibooks? User:Rus793 (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

??

Which article is that? Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant in general since the thought has come up before. What triggered this again for me was the article I requested QD:A3 this morning, Banksia ilicifolia. The resulting talk page warning can sometimes put off an editor who might adapt well to this wiki. I thought to mention that, if the user wanted to recreate the page and needed some help, you might be a very logical choice—if you were willing or had the time. But since I hadn't asked you before, it wasn't appropriate to say anything. That was all I was asking. Different editors here have different areas of expertise. Since this fell in yours it occurred to me to ask you about it. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This particular young person has done some constructive things on En wiki, including a short stub on a shrub (!). In general, mentoring doesn't work well here. Difficult as it is in real life, here you don't have all the usual clues about the other person, and how he/she is reacting.

Probably the best advice to give anyone is to copy what an experienced person does until they feel they understand what is going on.

Just a word about QDs. If we delayed, then we'ld have to have a whole system for logging, examining the page later, etc. They wouldn't be QDs any longer. We'ld get overwhelmed. Facts of life here are that we have to be brisk, and hope that the occasional potential editor understands. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sneaker Pimps

Why was the article marked for deletion? Sneaker Pimps are quite notable because of the music they did in the 1990s. Can I make the article more notable than it is now? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It was because it did not say why the group was notable. Just being a band does not make them notable. How would readers know what they did if the article doesn't tell them? But afterwards you added just enough information to claim notability ("Their song, "6 Underground, peaked at #7 on Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart"). Now it needs to show notability by adding a reliable source to the statement (for example, a citation from Billboard). The whole purpose of an article is to tell readers all about this group and what they've done. Right now you're the best editor to do that. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi, we have a talkback at GTX1975's talk page to reply all these messages, you can remove this subject at anytime.GTX (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, i will archive all my five messages to User talk:GTX1975/Archive 1, if you want to answer and reply, you go to my user talkpage instead of Archive page by clicking Add Topic section then I'll Reply, but you must look at the last five messages that I archived first then you can reply related to these five messages, not on something else.GTX (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then, please reply to me at User talk:GTX1975/Archive 1 from Message Section 11 onwards to read then reply to the original user talkpage, User talk:GTX1975. Can you do it? Thank you so much for your corporation!GTX (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I copied some of the questions I could answer to your talk page. To keep things organized, we can keep our conversation on your talk page. Thank you. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:September 1988/Hurricane Odile

Hey Rus: I'm having some trouble trying to simplify the article User:September 1988/Hurricane Odile. Auntof6 mentioned that the article was quite complex and moved it into my mainspace. Please help me. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

While the sentences are simplified, it needs to be wikified. There are a number of specific terms that many who are new to the English readers would probably not understand. I'll make a few changes and see if that helps. You might also want to add more information and sources while you have it in your sandbox. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your RfD for Zing It

Just FYI, in case you're interested for future reference, this would qualify for QD because it's a product. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I knew it qualified for QD. But in this case I thought getting consensus might be a better idea. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

ARCO

Thanks for the help. Can you pull back your delete now? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I went to withdraw the request this morning but it had already been closed as a keep. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy: A suggestion

I don't know if this page should be deleted or not. But you just templated someone who created the page eight years ago, and who is an administrator, bureaucrat, oversighter, etc., etc. I think I would have opted for a personal message rather than a template if I were you. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but the page has remained a dicdef for eight years. That was the point. Also, it does not matter which editor created the stub, or at least that's what I've been told by other admins. The creator was and is an experienced editor, but that was never the issue. I like to think had I created it eight years ago and it remained unchanged, that perhaps it is better suited for Wiktionary. Nothing here is sacrosanct. I looked at the article at Enwiki and, while it is expanded, I'm not certain these improvements all work for this project. In fact they appear to be the subject matter for several articles. But, I'm willing to see what the other editors (admins included) think about it. The template is a standard RfD template but the reason could have been more complete. I edited both the message on the page and at the RfD to reflect this. Thank for pointing this out. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

NP. My only point in making the comment to you was that the page creator has earned better than a standard template response. (See en:Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.) The argument that the page is a dicdef is a legitimate one. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

RfDs for movies

Did you realize that movie articles qualify for quick deletion under WP:QD#A4? (Movies are products.) --Auntof6 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I forgot that. Thanks for mentioning it. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

True. Do keep in mind WP:MOVIE, although it's likely that if it's a QD candidate, that guideline is probably the least of its problems. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Zvezdochkin Vladimir‎

Could you please reply to my question I asked there. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 16:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@LaurenCox600: I'm sorry, it looked like an open question. I didn't realize you were asking me specifically. I thought one of the admins might answer you. But my take on this is that once nominated for RfD, it usually is best handled there. First, it's often a judgment call as to whether to delete via QD or RfD; the latter is sometimes the safer course. Three editors expressed the opinion it was either self-promotional or promotional. If you are not sure (hence your question) it's probably better to watch this and more RfDs to get a feeling for how the community regards articles such as this one. We also try not to get into extended discussions on an RfD which is why I answered you here. As Aunt mentioned earlier on your talk page, there are several differences between this project and other Wikipedias. Along those same lines you may find this help page useful: Help:Notability. I hope this helps answer your question. Good to have you here. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand thanks for telling me! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rus793. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I left you that so you can reply if you or Auntof6 help me expand 2016 Stanley Cup Finals. Let me know on Auntof6 talk page about what you or Auntof6 did to the article. Thanks! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 04:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC) LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 04:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@LaurenCox600: I'll answer you here instead of Aunt's talk page. Like Aunt, this isn't a subject I have much interest in. Translating the jargon used in sources into Simple English would take a bit more work for me. I can give some general suggestions, however. It appears you are doing this from scratch and not a legal copy and paste of the article from Enwiki (instructions are in Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia). In this case, I would line up as many reliable source citations as I could first, before starting the article. Then cite as you go (otherwise you can easily lose track of which sources you used for which sentence). Going back and finding source citations for various factual statements later is harder to do. Aunt gave you some good suggestions on her talk page. It also appears you have a problem with the layout. The infobox on the right won't allow the full width table to display next to it. It probably would be simplest to add another section large enough to clear the infobox and follow that with the Series section and table. Watch the word "and". It usually means you are connecting two simple sentences should be separated. This is Simple English Wikipedia meaning we use simple sentences and simpler (wherever possible) words. It just takes a little while to get the hang of creating articles here. You get better and better the more of them you do. Creating articles here is the backbone of this project and we can always use more content editors. If you have any questions about any of this or need help in the future, just ask. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

English Springer Spaniel (Simple English)

Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. I used "Colour" as the article is about an English dog. Also the link I provided to the Kennel Club UK is much more appropriate than the fun type dog comparison website between Labrador and Springer Spaniel. I have kept English Springer Spaniels for more years than I care to remember and they are never "yellow" or "red" (again see my ref UK Kennel Club Breed standard - the other KC's are similar) so rather than revert I'd ask you to use this source (or similar) and only specify the correct colours, Sincerely Xyzspaniel (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Xyzspaniel: Even if you accept it was originally an English breed, the dogs are found in a great many countries today. The country where a standard first existed does not negate the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English guideline for articles. So please do not change between national varieties of English in an article. You can probably guess I do not live in England, but I can use the spelling "colour" if editing an article that is written in British English. You can certainly add the information for comparison, but remember that National kennel clubs have more restrictive standards and the article is not about show dogs only. So if you do add it back, please make sure the reader understands you are comparing the standards of one national kennel club to a general article. BTW, the American Kennel Club mentions "lemon" and "orange" combined with white in their colors. But whether a kennel club or other show dog standards allow a color or not does not mean the color does not exist in the breed. Lastly, please remember that as editors (not authors) we do not base articles on our own experiences. We compile information from various reliable sources. I hopes this helps explain. I'm going to add a welcome message to your talk page with a number of links to guidelines and policies. They are in most cases very similar to those of the English Wikipedia which you have experience with. But there are also some significant differences. If you have any questions or would like any help, please ask. You can also ask at Wikipedia:Simple talk, our general message board. Thank you and Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. Rus793 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply (but I think I'll stick to En Wikipedia) I came across the article by mistake and the errors stood out at me, but I guess if it's aimed at "Simple English" or non-native speakers then it doesn't have to be a comprehensively cited sort of thing :)but please re-read American Kennel Club @ http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/english-springer-spaniel/detail/#tone (ref colours of lemon, red and orange not being acceptable in the US either) - BTW my own dogs are always of the field or working strain I don't actually like the idea of dog shows - Best wishes from Ireland Xyzspaniel (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Positional notation QD

I think, redirecting this article to Place value will be a better option. What say? — MBlaze Lightning 14:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems to work. All I saw was an unencyclopedic jumble of notes. So it's OK with me if you redirect it and remove the QD notice. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, cheers. — MBlaze Lightning 14:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

NO VANDALISM

stop ! This time I'm right! IMDb is the most famous film site in the world and he has a personal page! He is also on ANSA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenzia_Nazionale_Stampa_Associata ) — This unsigned comment was added by Bolisky (talk • changes) at 16:56, 27 August 2016‎.

Please, stop removing the template on Christian Orlandi, that is considered vandalism. If you have an objection to deleting the article, per the template instructions, please make them on the article's talk page. Deleting the template only makes things worse. I'm not sure why you bring up IMDb but it is not considered a reliable source on this Wikipedia. If you have any questions or would like to know more about why it does not qualify, please ask. If you write an explanation as to why you do not believe it should be deleted, then it may go to RfD, which is where other editors may voice their opinions as to whether it should be kept or not, over a period of seven days. If, during those seven days the article is sufficiently improved, it may be decided to keep the article. This is not about being right or wrong, it is about having good article for this project. If you would like help or suggestions on how to make the article better, perhaps even resubmit an improved version later, please ask. But as the article is now I do not believe it meets the Wikipedia notability criteria. Rus793 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bolisky: Let me add a couple of things that might help explain this. Notability at Wikipedia means a subject that is important enough to deserves an article here. A subject might be notable (or in English, sufficiently noteworthy), but if the article written about that subject fails to say why it is notable, then it fails to claim notability. All articles here need to say why the subject is notable. In addition, the article should also show notability by the use of reliable source citations. These source citation do not need to be in the English language, but it may be helpful to readers if at least some of them are. As we are a small wiki and do not have tutorials, often getting the help of other editors will tell you what you need to know. In both these replies there are links to Wikipedia guidelines you might want to read. BTW, while IMDb is not considered a reliable source here, you may be able to mine it for sources it used on the subject. Nearly every editor here, including those who have written hundreds even thousands of articles, have had articles deleted. While no one particularly likes it, they all learned from it and went on to create more and better articles. Again, if you would like any help, you can ask here or at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Rus793 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Related pages/Preemptive war

I would say most of the pages you listed under "related pages" were not related except in the general sense. I can see shock tactics as related, and perhaps ambush in some respects. If we had a page "undeclared war". that would definitely be related. We chose the subtitle differently from En's "other pages" specifically because we wanted to make these mini-lists more restrictive. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was using the general sense. But even being more specific, rearguard and Attrition warfare are also related. Rus793 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mahsun Kırmızıgül

Just to help you understand, a source citation must support the statement fully. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. As an example, the first statement in the article is: "Mahsun Kırmızıgül (Born Abdullah Bazencir, april 01, 1968) is a Turkish singer–songwriter, actor and director of Kurdish descent." You must use a reliable published source that contains all this information. It cannot just mention the subject's name or any other part of the statement or it would be a failed reference. As an alternative to finding a reliable source for an existing statement, find sources that can verify a part of the statement and shorten the statement to verify what is there. For example, if it does not give his birth name, omit that. If it does not say he was a director but does verify he was a singer, songwriter and actor, then omit the director part. As a suggestion, try looking for a biography that would contain more information than a news article. This article is a biography of a living person. Special care must be taken with the information provided on this person. In addition to being verified by reliable sources, it has to maintain a neutral point of view and cannot contain original research. I linked these guidelines for you so you can read them yourself. If you have any questions, you can ask them here or at Wikipedia:Simple talk. I hope this helps you see what is needed to improve this article. Rus793 (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Rus793, thank you for sharing guidelines about writing an article. For the notability issue, reference I've added along with the IMDb profile, should suffice.--HakanIST (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% regarding QDs. My only concern is that while QDs and warnings are necessary, unless I see clear signs I'm dealing with a vandal, a note of encouragement doesn't hurt. I know, mentoring doesn't work that well at enwiki either. I think you've answered my original question. I appreciate it, Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

rfd

feel free to take part here. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up. I took a look at it and did make a comment. I'll take a second look. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

On that page you just edited.

Why did you get rid of the contraction? There was nothing wrong with it. You seem to know what you're doing so I won't revert it. Krett12 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Krett12, I changed it because WP:Manual of Style#Contractions says not to use them except in quotations. They confuse readers who are newer to the English language. Out of habit I use them in everyday writing and in talk pages so I have to be careful when working on articles. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The other reason not to use them is that they are informal, and our encyclopedia articles are supposed to have a formal tone. English Wikipedia doesn't use them, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Many contractions end up as standard words. Bus, plane... Also Ltd (as in limited company). People who learn in classrooms learn "did not". People who learn on the streets of an English-speaking foreign country learn "didn't". The choice is not completely straightforward or clear-cut. Virtually everyone says "it's" for "it is". WP is in some cases far more informal, and in other cases quite old-fashioned. But of course I agree an encyclopedia should have a more formal tone than popular culture. However, in English wiki, obscure, pompous, verbose, long-winded, puffed-up conceit is a more obvious danger than informal prose. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Bus, plane, and Ltd are not contractions: the first two are shortened forms of single words and the other is an abbreviation. Also, the obscure, etc. language may be worse than using contractions, but this isn't an either-or situation: both should be avoided in here (except on talk pages, of course). --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

the article on which I'm working

Could you help me with an article that I'm working on? I'm having a hard time understanding whether or not complex terms are inside the article. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the article? User:Rus793 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

new policy page on article titles

Hey, Rus, was there any discussion about this new policy page? I think any new policy or guideline pages should be discussed before being created, even if they're just simplification of enwiki pages. We might want to simplify not just the language, but also rules or procedures. Would you please post something at Simple talk asking for comment? Besides that, the language still needs simplifying. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was planning on doing just that and yes, I know it needs simplifying. This is the reason I stopped where I did. There are some questions I see that need consensus. Wow! One minute in existence and you saw the page. I'll have to ask you sometime how you do that! Anyway, I was working on both parts. I was hopeful you'd jump in here somewhere and help with the adaptation to this wiki. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

changing reference

References were changed on two recently created articles, Thoroughly Modern Millie (musical) and Amanda Holden. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In each case I gave the reason in the edit comment. I used two abbreviations; rem for removed and ref for reference. Hopefully those didn't confuse you. This was per m:Help:Edit summary#Abbreviations. If you want to bookmark it, one list of common abbreviations is in w:Wikipedia:Edit summary legend.

One reference (source citation) in Thoroughly Modern Millie (musical) failed verification—in other words the source did not support the statement in the article. As it was one of two citations for the same statement and the other did support the statement, there was no need to replace it. One reliable source per statement is usually sufficient. I added other sources to statements following this one. You may have noticed I changed a couple of existing statements somewhat; this was to make sure the statements matched the information in the sources used. For example, the year 1922 was not supported in the source but 1920s was. In Amanda Holden, neither reference was to a reliable source. One was to a commercial pay site with user submitted information (WP:RS#What kind of sources should I avoid?), the other to a source linked to the subject (WP:RS#Sources linked to the subject). In both articles additional reliable sources were added. I hope this answers the question. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Transwiki attribution

Hi, thanks for adding the transwiki attribution to the new Ship's cat article. Is this all set now or does credit need to be added anywhere else? Thanks again for your help. Fuhvah (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that's all there is to it. It is basically for copyright purposes and is the only condition of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks again. Fuhvah (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't say wrong about me

Hello Rus793, I don't know to whom are you talking about & which article are you saying but i want to say strongly that it is my first user account and i have created the article with this topic for first time. I also want to mention that i will improve this article with notable texts and best refercences as soon when i will found. So, please..please..don't support towards deletion.Xdiwali (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Suvrat Raj. The comments I made were my own opinions as to the lack of notability of the article Suvrat Raj. I also said the article of the same name had been deleted three times at another wiki. I mentioned the user who submitted the article there, w:User:SUVRAT RAJ, was blocked for Sock puppetry (at the English Wikipedia). I did not say anything about you—Xdiwali. That is, unless you are saying you are User:SUVRAT RAJ. If that is the case please be aware there is a One strike rule here. If you are not the same editor as User:SUVRAT RAJ then you have nothing to worry about. You are asking me not to support deletion of a substandard article and to ignore several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sorry, but what I can do for you is to show you what an article of this kind needs. First, you need to show that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia:Notability (people) would also seem to apply. Note that you cannot make a subject notable. The person either meets or does not meet the notability guidelines. The job of an editor submitting an article is to find a significant number of reliable secondary sources that verify the subject is notable. Using poor quality or nonexistant sources only goes to show a subject is probably not notable. Also, while not mentioned as yet, this article is a w:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (we are currently using the English Wikipedia policy while ours is being simplified). This policy, which requires the use of "high-quality sources", has to be followed as well. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Revdel action on your user talk

An edit on your user talk page which claims to be giving you a barnstar has been deleted due to its inappropriate content. Please feel free to contact me/any other administrator privately for more information. Chenzw  Talk  15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you an admin?

Too lazy to check and I trust you to give the right answer. Krett12 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12: No, I'm an editor. You can check to see who is an administrator (bureaucrat, oversighter, etc.) at Wikipedia:Administrators. While I have your attention, as just a suggestion I'd lose the flashing tmbox on your talk page. It's an open invitation to vandalize your talk page. The most effective vandalism fighters here rarely advertise the fact. Something to think about. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I know how to check, I was just too busy looking at RC to take the time to. Krett12 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So you ask another busy editor to take their time to answer something you know how to find for yourself? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

I see you going behind me and expanding my stubs to make them decent articles. I hope it's not frustrating work for you. Anyway, thank you for it - it definitely helps them feel like encyclopedia articles. Lithorien (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of several editors with patroller rights (administrators also have patroller rights). A person without the patroller right creates a page. The MediaWiki software immediately lists the page at Special:NewPages (those who have patroller rights see unpatrolled pages highlighted in yellow). A user with the patroller right will review the article and mark it patrolled. BTW, your articles are interesting, keep them coming. If there is anything any of us can to do help, just ask. Thanks and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia. User:Rus793 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Ka-Bar

The page you wrote, Ka-Bar, 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. //nepaxt 00:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the warning, but this article looks like it's word for word from English Wikipedia. //nepaxt 00:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Rescue 911 wording changed

I just noticed segments was changed to episodes. Also, "New Year's Eve 1986" was changed to "1986 New Year's Eve." Please tell me why. Angela Maureen (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The same reason as any change, to make the stub or article easier to understand. "Segments", for example, when meaning a TV episode, is TV slang and not a usage that readers new to English might readily comprehend. Hopefully, every change will be for the benefit of the reader. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

I have seen the message you left to Recherchedienst. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Do you see how cold and impersonal that message sounds? While we need to use the template messages for truly bad behavior, such as vandalism and the like, it's really much better to express your concerns with a personal note instead of a template. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Re "Gun"

The page gun now says the same things twice or three times in different places. Perhaps you were planning to work on it further? If not, I may get to it tomorrow. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that. I'm working on it right now. Just stopped to see what this message was about. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Gun (disambiguation)

Hey, Rus, I deleted this page because the entries on it weren't called just "gun". Entries on a dab page have to be called exactly what the page title says (or possibly plurals, such as guns, or things that are pronounced the same, such as Gunn), not things that happen to have the word in their name somewhere. See the corresponding enwiki page for examples. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)