User talk:Rus793/Archive 8

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

Twixt inclusionist and deletionist the difference is droll... one sees the doughnut; the other sees the hole. Apologies to Anonymous

Deletionists are those who believe in selective coverage in the encyclopedia and removal of articles that are seen as unnecessary, substandard and/or trivial. Deletionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire that Wikipedia be focused on and cover significant topics, following as high standards as are possible.
Inclusionists are those who believe in retaining a wide variety of articles including articles which might otherwise be considered substandard. Inclusionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire to keep Wikipedia broad in coverage with a much lower standard for topics covered. It also includes the belief that it is impossible to tell what knowledge might be useful or productive. Many believe content often starts out as unsourced, of poor or substandard quality, but might be improved if given enough time. Some extend this to allowing a wider range of sources such as blogs, social media and other similar websites.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. Aristotle


Jammu Kashmir is not just a land dispute between Indian & Pakistan but a problem of national freedom of Kashmiries. Wikipedia writers must not write Jammu Kashmir/Azad Kashmir as part of India or Pakistan. As per the ground reality and the struggle of Kashmiri people, this is obvious that kashmiries wants freedoom from both Indian and Pakistan. As UN has already described Jammu Kashmir as "disputed territory", so this must not be mentioned as India or Pakistani part. Huzihuzz760 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Wikipedia article is not written from the standpoint of what something should be, just what it is. Encyclopedias should never get caught up in causes or disputes and they are not a forum for people with differing opinions to quarrel over. As the article Jammu and Kashmir states, it is a state of India. That may change or it may not. If it changes, the article should change to reflect the new status. One of our core policies is that articles must maintain a neutral point of view. I hope this helps you understand. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

references vs reflist[change source]

For what reason do you replace "references" with "reflist"? I've seen you do this in multiple articles. Angela Maureen (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Angela. I don't believe I've changed it that many times since the majority of pages I've seen use the {{reflist}} template in lieu of the <references/> markup tag. But I think I've changed it in a number of your pages I've patrolled. The template offers some styling advantages to the references section over the use of the markup tag. In addition, changes to a template will be reflected on all pages on which the template is transcluded. Changes to pages using wiki markup tags must be changed one at a time—should a change become necessary. Does that help? User:Rus793 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

having a hard time proving actor is notable[change source]

Can someone please help me? I'm having a hard time proving notability for Dinah Manoff. If I can't prove notability for this actor, I'm screwed! Angela Maureen (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@September 1988: She's not what you might call a major actress but certainly a notable one ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable"). You show (as in prove) notability by using several reliable sources. Here are 8 you should be able to do a lot with:
Use these and the subject will show notability. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure that all Tony awards are prima facie evidence of notability, but acting ones surely are. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An acting Tony certainly meets the requirement for "a well-known and significant award or honor". Good point. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would some Tony awards not show notability? Aren't they all for high achievement in their specified area? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) A major award, such as a Tony, which is awarded to a specific person, would show inherent notability for that person. Please see, WP:ANYBIO. I have added a specific citation to the Dinah Manoff article confirming she won the Tony Award in 1980. Etamni | ✉   09:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it would, but that doesn't answer my question. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, a Tony that is awarded for, say, best play, would not confer notability on every person who had anything at all to do with that play. (The play itself, however, would have sufficient notability to have an article, and those who contributed significantly to that play would certainly deserve mention within that article. It is also likely that they will have had sufficient news coverage to be able to show notability in their own right; I'm only saying that their association with an award-winning play wouldn't confer such notability automatically.) Etamni | ✉   10:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I didn't think that such an award would show notability for a person, just that it would show notability to the person or thing/entity it was awarded to. Steven said that some Tony Awards might not show notability st all, and I wanted him to clarify. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Last Dragonlord[change source]

Hey. I just wanted to say thank you for helping with the Dragonlords series articles. I'm trying to make them to the level of GA, but I know that's a lot of work. Your help is motivating me to keep trying, though, and so I wanted to say thanks. --Lithorien (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Interesting article. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jessica Jung[change source]


I have noticed that you have deleted my article Jessica Jung and replaced it with a redirect. You said Jessica does not meet the notability guide. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Jessica has a long page on the non-simple Wikipedia, which clearly implies that she is a notable subject (as that Wiki has a notability guideline too). Also, there are myriad of secondary sources on the web about her, including many news sites. I thought it was very obvious that she is a notable subject, but of course, I could be wrong. Maybe User:auntof6 would like to weigh in? Anyway, happy editing :) William2001 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, Jessica is clearly as notable as other eight members of Girls' Generation, and they all have an article.William2001 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@William2001: It wasn't deleted—the information is still there—it was redirected. The article did not claim notability; not that I saw. That means it did not say she was notable based on the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability and/or at Wikipedia:Notability (people). You can also read Help:Notability for more information. You show she is notable by citing those claims of notability with reliable sources. Being a member of a group does not necessarily make the person themselves notable even if the group is. For example, has she won any major awards for her singing (not the group's)? Has she had important roles in several notable movies, television shows, stage performances, or other productions? Being a singer, an actor, or a businessperson or someone being good at what they do, does not meet the criteria for notability here. You can certainly change the redirect back to an article but you'd want to address the notability issue based on Wikipedia' guidelines, not the English-language definition of notable. I just thought for now it would be better as a redirect. BTW, I agree with you she's clearly as notable (Wikipedia Notability) as the others in the group. Most are uncited stubs that, as they are presently, could be deleted or redirected as not being notable. Sooyoung is the only one that could be said to show notability (Complex's Hottest '90s Babies). It's a bit thin and could be improved significantly. If you'd like to improve it or the others to show they are in fact notable, I'll help get you started. Or, you can ask Auntof6. You can also post questions or requests at Simple talk|. By the way, I loved your reference to the "non-simple Wikipedia"! User:Rus793 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rus793: Thank you for your response! I see what you are saying. I'll keep it as a redirect for now, but change it later back to an article after I find more information on her, such as the ones you have mentioned. Happy editing! Best, William2001 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"welcome"[change source]

I have been welcomed, it's at my archives. PokestarFan (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I caught that. I was working on a message to you. See your talk page. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[change source]

Thank you, that was a nice gesture and I appreciate it. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar for you![change source]

The Society Barnstar
I'm giving you this barnstar for your incredible work on law-related articles dealing with courts, legal terms, and court cases. Your hard work has been a major improvement for the encyclopedia as a whole. Thank you. --Lithorien TalkChanges 16:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We all need encouragement now and then and this comes at a good time. Thank you, I appreciate this very much. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty cite[change source]

Hey Rus. In Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, there's a citation (named "cwFL") that is empty except for an access date. It's cited quite a few times, so I thought I'd better let you know. Osiris (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll take care of it now. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how can I replace rallying point/tax equity[change source]

I'm having serious trouble looking for something to replace rallying point and tax equity. I need help. Angela Maureen (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need more information. I don't know what you mean or what article this is about. Let me know and I'll see if I can help. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:September 1988/Log Cabin Republicans is the article about which I'm talking. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see either term in the article right now. Are you trying to work them in and need simpler terms? Rallying point is defined in the English Wiktionary which may give you some ideas. I'm at a loss trying to figure out what tax equity has to do with LCR unless it's w:Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (an article we don't have yet). Otherwise, can you use them in sentences to show what it is you're trying to add to the article? Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar[change source]

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your involvement in the Big Reference Weekend 2016, and making over 100 edits. Peterdownunder (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it very much. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing citation styles[change source]

Hi Rus793, I am confused about the changing citation styles issue that you mentioned on the Rosa Parks talk page. I have had many admins/editors go in and change citation styles in pages I've either created or started in one citation style. Generally I use the actual citation templates that Wikipedia provides so I always thought those were the style Wikipedia wanted. Anyway, it's happened so many times that admins/editors change citations into certain formats that I thought that was the standard. But you are saying there is no standard format, editors can cite any way they want? And if that's true, do you have any advice for me on what to do when I create a page with a certain citation style and an admin goes in and changes the citations into a different style? I don't want to get into a war with any admins. Citations have been one of the most confusing things for me on Wikipedia because every page is different, and also admins have changed some of my citations into such strange formats that I have no idea what style they are using. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. Fuhvah (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Fuhvah: As far as I know, you can use different citation styles, as long as you're consistent within each individual article. See en:WP:CITEVAR for more info. Can you give an example of an article where the citation style was changed? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict) I can't speak to why any citation styles you may have used were changed before. I know at least one administrator checked me on changing citations styles before without consensus and at least a couple who have mentioned it to others. It comes from w:Wikipedia:Citing sources using Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia. Templates are actually available in more than one citation styles so it depends on which you use. If a citation is added using a different style, then at some point it should be changed to conform to the style used by the majority of citations. But that isn't the same as changing all the source citations to a different style. If the citations do not follow any given style, as with bare URL or with basic citations (url and title in single brackets), or just a mix of everything, it seems we are free to introduce a standard style. But there is no official citation style. I got in the habit many years ago (not saying just how many) when teaching how to use source citations, was the use of the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago style) for its simplicity and because it was in use by the majority of scholastic journals. But there are equally good reasons to use the APA style, MLA style, ASA style or any of several other styles. MLA style is probably the most widely used, at least in the United States. At any rate, I'm open to discussing what style to use in the article on the talk page. I actually did not start the style used in the Rosa Parks article. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, you guys are quick :) Thanks, this clarifies it for me, I appreciate the help, as always. Fuhvah (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

having trouble looking for word replacement[change source]

I'm having trouble finding a word that replaces feature. It's on User:September 1988/New York City English. Are there any words that replace feature? Angela Maureen (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me answer that generally. I get stuck for a word often enough. First thing I do is do a Google search for the word followed by "synonyms". Sometimes, just Google the word by itself. Either one usually gives me a list of words, one of which works better than others. The Simple English Wiktionary is a resource I've learned to use a lot. It has limited synonyms but they are usually in either Simple English or are words Wiktionary has a definition for, so could be linked from the article. Often enough, either gives me the word I was trying to think of. According to the Simple Wiktionary: "Feature is part of the Academic Word List. It is important for students in college and university." So linking feature, if it is appropriate, to the Wiktionary definition is another option. There are also a number of other special purpose links I use (legal dictionaries, language translation pages, Latin-English dictionaries, etc). Anyway, I hope one or more of the above suggestions works for you. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Spahn Ranch[change source]

I made some changes to that Spahn Ranch article. I think it might be much better now. Yes, most of it was the same info on the English version, but I simplified it some, found some additional information, a couple more references, and just basically tried to compact it and take out some unnessary details. Take a look. You might feel it is good now. I added a wait tag to it. Fishnagles (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does look better. Most likely if any objections to the article still exist, it would have to go to RfD and I don't see the necessity for that myself. Just to help a bit, I broke the first sentence into two and linked the words not in Basic English to other articles. For terms, we can also link to the Simple English Wiktionary. You can choose not to include more complex information from other Wikipedias that does not lend itself well to simplifying. Some subjects are easier to simplify than others (this one being easier), but I hope the example helps. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edwin Atherstone[change source]

Thank You for Your notice. Please write some words, why You think that the page about Edwin Atherstone should be deleted (it is in many other Wikipedias). I think it should remain because people are interested in things that are longest, greatest and outstanding in any way. And The Fall of Nineveh is in fact very long. Some people like to read about ancient wars, kings and queens, beautiful palaces, warriors, horses and chariots. If You tell me, what I should do to make the page better, I will do it. (Anagram16 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

@Anagram16: First, I did not see that it claim notability. Second, when I did a cursory check to see if it could be improved, I didn't find much. The DNB only said he was a poet and writer, and by itself that was not enough. Being a poet or writer is not a claim of notability, they're just occupations. However, Fylbecatulous found more and improved the article. The QD was just a recommendation and it was declined, based on the later improvements. Of the pages I patrolled today I was able to improve two others, so that is always a first choice with a new article that does not meet certain guidelines. If you're interested, please read Wikipedia:Notability and Help:Notability. I hope this helps. Rus793 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Rus793, thanks for all Your notices. I am aware of importance of sources (good sources) and try to collect them before writing. Perhaps best sources for (Simple) English Wikipedia are in English, but when an article is about Russian, Polish or East European person, sources in other languages may be useful. You have done good work with Jan Kochanowski and I will follow You in my next articles. The site is in English but I think we should write about everything in the world, not only about English or American things. Articles about the Kochanowskis is needed, because some people in the West think that there was only one poet with the name, while they were four. The language here should be simple, but problems should not be simplified. You made a link to Sigismund II Augustus and I will try to fill it. The Jagiellonian University is also important. It was the first university in Poland. I think there should be more articles like Shota Rustaveli (it is without sources now, but it can be changed soon) or Omar Khayyám, that is about important authors, who wrote not in English. Thanks once again. (Anagram16 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Sigismundus II Augustus[change source]

I made an article (suggested by You) about Sigismundus II Augustus. I hope sources are good enough. They are in English and Polish. Have a good Sunday. (Anagram16 (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The sources were good and other language sources are fine. My concern was that almost half were based on the Encyclopedia Britannica. Adding other reliable sources reduced the dependence on that encyclopedia. Note the changes made when patrolling the article. One in particular was the legend of the talking head. The source I found made a little more sense and tied in nicely with the illustration of the heads (one having a ribbon over the mouth). If you have any questions you can ask here, on your talk page, at another editor's talk page or, to reach a wider audience, at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all improvements in Sigismundus II Augustus. As far as I know the person accused before the king was a poor widow. She was at the market square, when a thief, followed by city guards, threw a stolen purse just at her feet. So she was arrested instead of the real criminal. I remember it from my chlildhood, but now I couldn't find a source for that. But there is another red link to Sigismundus I the Old. He was really old because he died at eighty. Perhaps I will write the article about him, too. (Anagram16 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Perhaps we have a vandalism here. (Anagram16 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi @Anagram16: I just reverted it and the vandal was blocked by an administrator--Druddigon (talk | changes) 20:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for Your notice. I understand that good sources are necessary for an article. I know something about Vladimír Holan form Czech sources but here I wanted to quote sources in English so that a speaker of English could compare with them. (Anagram16 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Foreign language sources are allowable to use here although I personally prefer using English-language sources. We cannot know what other languages any given reader can read. Some readers would know to use software based translators, but others might not. Also, "machine translations" often produce broken English that is hard to follow even for readers who know English very well. So if a reader depends on software to translate a source in another language page into English, there is still the problem that many will not be able to read or comprehend what it says. For those reasons I agree that English language sources are the best choice whenever possible. Rus793 (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second thing, I did not copy article form any Wikipedia. I understand however that it is similar (and has to be similar) to other articles because it gives the same facts. Could You insert an information about author or authors of the article about Victoria Colonna at English or Italian Wikipedia here, so that I will be able to copy its scheme in my next articles. I mean something like "this article is based on the text presented at English Wikipedia by ..." formula with all needed signs ") ] }". (Anagram16 (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

If it is not copied from another Wikipedia, then transwiki attribution is not required. If it is based on reliable sources then citing them is the appropriate way to credit the authors or organizations. However, it is perfectly OK to copy from another Wikipedia as long as transwiki attribution is provided crediting those who created the article. This is the only provision of the Creative Commons 3.0 license, which you see at the bottom of every change window. When you or I submit something at this or another Wikipedia, we agree to legally release it to Wikipedia. In turn, anyone else may copy it as long as attribution is given. If attribution is not given, then it is technically a copyright violation. The procedure is covered in Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution and also in Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. The version number is obtained by clicking Permanent link in the left panel on the Wikipedia page you are copying from. This changes the URL at the top of the page to include the version number. Take for example, the Enwiki article w:Vladimír Holan. If you had copied from this article, the normal url would be: Clicking on Permanent link changes the URL to:ír_Holan&oldid=741568720. Copy the portion: oldid=741568720 which is the version number you need for the attribution template. This is just an example. Since you did not use this article attribution isn't needed. Lastly, yes I believe you can simply add a statement instead of a template, but it's more consistent and easier just to use the template. Rus793 (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should add, when using the {{enwp based|url= }} template, copy the entire URL including the version number. Rus793 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following En:Wikipedia MOS[change source]

Hi, does the Simple English Wiki follow the same policies as as the English Wikipedia? Specifically relating to the MOS and policies regarding the use of flag icons in tables.

"Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) have long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons."

Night at the Museum Release Dates - The flags are pretty but I am concerned that they add visual clutter to the page. Thoughts? Thanks. bobdog54 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, Bobdog. We generally do follow enwiki's MOS. I know I've removed flags from infoboxes here. Note that the MOS talks about flags in infoboxes, not in tables. The release dates you're looking at are in a table, not an infobox. I'd say the flags aren't really needed in the table, but they aren't the kind of problem that they are in infoboxes. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You somehow thought the edits were vandalism; it didn't look like vandalism to me. What was it that made you revert the edit? Angela Maureen (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Angela, if you could please take a second look I think you can see why. The article was better before the edit. First, the citation the user added was to verify the word "common". Common what? Common is not a statement, it is a word. If the object was to define the word "common" that could have been accomplished with a link to Simple Wiktionary (the word common here redirects to Common land). Secondly, the citation's url and title do not match. Then there is the use of the nowiki tags which serve no purpose I can see. It only caused the double brackets to show and not the links themselves. Then there is breaking text-source integrity by adding information that particular source does not verify (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Text–source integrity). Lastly, these all might have been mistakes which is why I used the level 1 notice (assumes good faith) and does not even use the word vandalism. Does this help answer your question? Rus793 (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I left the original (useless) source where its was (at Common), the 2 sources on the page as it is now are (1) to a completely different breed - the Welsh Springer Spaniel and, (2) to a non-reliable source, I added a reliable source (United Kennel Club Breed Standard) and corrected the colors, ok so I got the [[ in the wrong places around the colors, but as it stands now the page is worse and you call my changes "vandalism" Perro Canario (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answered on User talk:Perro Canario. Rus793 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Rus793 for you time. Perro Canario (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chackerian[change source]

Hello, Recently I created the Simple English article for "Perfect Information" which it seems you have marked for quick deletion. You claimed that it contains copy and paste content from the regular English wikipedia (which it does but only two sentences of the entire page). Would you like me to rewrite these two sentences? I thought that these two sentences were pretty concise as it is and did not need any changes. I'm not really sure however if this (copying even 1 line) is considered ok when creating a Simple English page. Please instruct me on whether I should, in fact, rephrase these two copied sentences or whether I should take entirely different action. Thanks.

--Chackerian (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chackerian: Yes, rephrasing would be the better option. Information copied from Enwiki is usually too complicated for this wiki. The information needs to be simplified (simple sentences with simpler words wherever possible). First, you might want to click on "wait" on the notice. Then give your reasons why it should not be deleted on the talk page. If the page is already deleted by the time you read this, you can create a simplified version in your sandbox and resubmit the article. Please see Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. If you have any questions, please ask. I'd be happy to help. Rus793 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gadri page[change source]

Hi, Rus. I deleted this page, but for a different reason than you specified (copy from enwiki, rather than not showing notability). I know one of the QD options is "people or groups of people" without indication of notability, but I'm not sure it was meant to cover this kind of group. If it comes up again and you think it should be deleted, would you take it to RfD instead of QD? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, no problem. Rus793 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using Wikipedia as a source[change source]

Hi, Rus. I saw your note to Wiki tamil 100. In articles about Wikipedia's, sometimes it is OK to use a Wikipedia as a source. Sometimes Wikipedia itself has the definitive information about itself, especially statistics. In the case of the two places where you removed the references, I agree with the first one, where it's talking about where the language is spoken. For the other one, where it's giving the number of users, etc., the only place you'd get that info is from Wikipedia itself. In the past, I have monitored use of Wikipedia as a reference so that I can remove it, but I always leave it in cases where Wikipedia is the basic source of the info. Please keep this in mind when you see Wikipedia used as a reference, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk)

Just quoting w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, numerous discussions and admonitions by administrators not to use it as a source. What you say makes some sense in this instance. There isn't likely going to be sources on the statistics of a small wiki other than the wiki itself. What are your thoughts on using Wikimedia foundation as a source? In looking, I noticed they did have statistics on the wiki in question. Is there any consensus on this use of Wikipedia in this kind of case or of using the Foundation? If not, is it worth bringing up to raise a community consensus? Thanks Rus793 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

request[change source]

please make my articles simple...Nijwmsa Boro 14:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Mr. Nijwmsa Boro (talk • changes) at 14:33, 29 November 2016‎.

OK, I'll do it as an example. Please look it over afterwards. The two guidelines I suggest you read are Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. I think these will help you understand the changes that are necessary to complex articles. It is perfectly acceptable to copy an article from another Wikipedia, but it has to be simplified using simple sentences and simpler words wherever possible. If you have any questions, please ask. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr. Nijwmsa Boro:. I made a number of changes to Bodo language. Please, go over them in some detail and ask if you see anything you do not understand. I continued this conversation back on your talk page to tie in with the other discussions. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, This contributor has added controversial ethnicity information without sources, I believe they should be reverted. Could you confirm? Thanks.--HakanIST (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you mean the new article on Zoë Kravitz? As a BLP, yes it should be reverted. I was going to QD the page for not claiming notability (notability is not inherited) but was interrupted. I was just going to log out when I saw your message. Go ahead and do whichever action you feel is warranted. Otherwise I was going to look at it tomorrow. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Semaj247: I placed a QD request on the page per your request to delete it.[change source]

@Rus793 Regarding QD request.

Please forgive me. I never realized that Simple English is a separate wiki. I appreciate your QD request. Thank you.

Not a problem at all. Good luck in your editing. Rus793 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am aware and agree with you that English wikiedia articles are generally complex. But not in this case. This simple English article on Syntactic Structures (a copy of only the lead section of the original enwiki version) is actually quite simple to read, according to several readability metric. I have tested it on many different online readability tools. They have consistently indicated that the lead section is at around 7th/8th grade reading level. Its Flesch readability score is 66. Zaheen (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have included attribution to the enwiki article in the talk page. Zaheen (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zaheen: In this context, complex means not using simple sentences and simpler words wherever possible. Our readership includes children and those new to the English language. The readability test you refer to uses an algorithm to determine sentence length and the number of syllables in individual words. A simple sentence has no predetermined length. It contains a subject, a verb and a complete thought. Simple words are based on the Basic English combined wordlist, not the number of syllables they contain. So the "Readability of Wikipedia" algorithm cannot recognize a simple sentence, only a shorter sentence. It is not set up to recognize Basic English words, only shorter words. As just an example:
He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. In the first forty days a boy had been with him. But after forty days without a fish the boy’s parents had told him that the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week. It made the boy sad to see the old man come in each day with his skiff empty and he always went down to help him carry either the coiled lines or the gaff and harpoon and the sail that was furled around the mast. The sail was patched with flour sacks and, furled, it looked like the flag of permanent defeat.
Combined tests place this at the 3.5 grade level. The text is from Earnest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. But it contains compound and complex sentences as well as words not in Basic English. Editors, who gain experience as they go, are our best option for getting simpler articles here. You might try starting with subjects that would be easier to simplify and work up from there. Rus793 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zaheen: If you have any questions about the above explanation re:Readability of Wikipedia (and others like it) please ask. I see that Aunt has offered to help you with the article. You should be able to get it simplified with her help. Good luck Rus793 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rus793: Could you please take a look at User:Zaheen/Syntactic Structures? Should I publish it? User talk:Zaheen/Syntactic Structures also has some statistics about the percentage of basic English words used in the article. Zaheen (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Zaheen. I took a look at it on your subpage. I think it can be made simpler and it needs better wikifying (adding links and page formatting). Another problem is it has no sources. Take for example the first sentence "Syntactic Structures is an important book in the science of language." Aside from what was meant by 'the science of language', without a source it sounds like someone promoting the book. I know it's the same as Enwiki, which doesn't make it any more correct there than here. So, whose opinion is this? Without a source, it has to be taken as original research. We're called 'editors' for a reason. We compile information from reliable sources and—writing it in our own words—base the information in the article on those sources. We are not authors who write as if we were authorities on the subject. An editor here might actually be an authority on several things, but still bases his or her articles on reliable sources and cites those sources. Also links would help readers understand what is meant by the 'science of language'. Or you could just substitute simpler words. Don't get trapped into thinking the Enwiki article is the only way to write this. In fact, Enwiki has been criticized as being too sophisticated for its own audience. I did some looking and several sources say this book is about the theory of language. That seems to be a good alternative to the first sentence and is also more specific. As just one example, you could start with:
Syntactic Structures is one of the first books about the theory of language.[1] It was written by American linguist, Noam Chomsky.[1]
  1. 1.0 1.1 Pierre Swiggers, University of Levens. "Grammar and language in Syntactic Structures". John Benjamins Publishing. Retrieved January 18, 2017.
This is just one example and there are other ways to simplify this. If you find sources first, then simplify what they say in your own words, you'll have two things—a simple article and source citations. It is an improvement over the Enwiki article but could be better still. See what you can do with it and ask me or another editor when you think it is better. Rus793 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply. As far as I can guess, I don't think it is possible to create the article here. It shouldn't be this difficult to create a page in a wiki. One shouldn't have to jump through so many hoops and wait for approvals like a beggar like what I have been doing so far. First it was the difficult language, now it's a host of other issues (sources, formatting, etc.). This could go on forever before the page can be created, may be never. So far, it has been a supremely frustrating experience and a huge waste of my time. I don't have the time or energy to continue this back-and-forth charade where I am being lectured in a patronizing fashion at every other turn. I would kindly request you, one last time, to reconsider creating the article page. You can list your problems on the article's talk page once it is created (Isn't it what talk pages are for?) and I will definitely work on improving on them. But isn't it time to create the page again with whatever we have at the moment? Or is it not? If not, then I am afraid I will have to leave this wiki immediately. I cannot keep wasting my time like this with no guarantee of the article ever getting created. I am at the very limit of my patience. Zaheen (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it's possible to create the articles here, editors do it every day. But that doesn't mean each and every new submission is automatically accepted—no more than a magazine accepts each and every article. We do have a few basic rules new pages need to follow. As you gain more experience as a editor you can learn more of the finer points. Simplification is one of the more basic tenets here. Our readers include those new to the English language, children and others who prefer a simpler encyclopedic article on a given subject. You can certainly post the article yourself, as you can any proposed new article. But it will be patrolled by someone. Perhaps I told you too much too soon. At any rate if you can just make it a little simpler, perhaps you could come back later and do the source citations. Sorry I couldn't able to be of more help. Rus793 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry christmas[change source]

To the finest editor on ANY Wikipedia: Please have a most wonderful Christmas! Mugginsx (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas too. Rus793 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really[change source]

Hi rus, you reverted my change on the simple wiki's FAT page for not having a citation. However, I just reformatted what was there without adding new information. So your reverting did not accomplish anything regarding citations. Thanks, Hubcapp (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every edit is a chance to improve the article by adding source citations. Rus793 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

do all articles need references?[change source]

Do all city, movie, music and other articles need references? I'm talking about articles other than people articles. Is that the reason you give references to these articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@September 1988: Hi Angela. We're called editors not authors, as we compile information from reliable sources then cite those sources. Authors write their own opinions, ideas and speculations, allowing the presumption they are the authority. No, we don't have to cite sources and many editors just don't know how to do it or don't want to. But the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources, and the policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability all encourage us to cite reliable, third party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Most of these "x" is a place in "y" articles we're cluttered with are never going to get improved. Not with the few active content editors we have. And I count you as one of those content editors. You also have the skills to research and cite sources—I've seen you do it. And as a good editor and future administrator, it would be great if you could set a good example. But aside from that, isn't it fun to see what you do with an article like Peoria, Arizona? Rus793 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twinkle[change source]

{{helpme}} How do you use Twinkle to add warnings? ThanksMiloDenn (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Milo. In your My Settings menu (upper right of your screen), go to the Gadgets menu. Check the box "Twinkle, a set of tools that automates common tasks such as reporting vandalism, warning vandals, and requesting deletion." Once checked you should see a new TW menu (below My Settings). The TW menu has different options depending on whether you're on a page or talk page. There is also a good explanation on Wikipedia:Twinkle. In issuing a warning on a talk page, for example, on the TW menu you'd click on Warn to get the Warn/notify user dialog box. The first drop down menu is the warning or notice level (level 1 is the default). The second drop-down menu selects the reason (these don't always match the QD reasons exactly). When you click Submit it creates a new level 2 heading for the month (unless there is already one there for the current month) and creates the warning and automatically adds your signature. When you're on a new page, the TW menu has QD, RfD, Tag, Stub, Last and Unlink. Twinkle makes it easier to issue warnings, notices, tag pages and do other required tasks. I hope this explains it well enough. If not, please let me know. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, its amazing, thats really useful, I can't believe I didn't know that MiloDenn (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's a common reaction. Still, it's not exactly intuitive. Like a lot of things here you learn from another editor. Then, in turn, you pass it on to someone else. Rus793 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{helpme}}What do the different rollback options mean?MiloDenn (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia:Rollback feature is automatically available to administrators and can be given to trusted users. Many of the Wikipedia:Patrollers are also rollbackers. It is a convenient way for an admin or trusted user to revert several edits by vandals at the same time. You can revert a group of edits by the same user or you can go back to a particular edit and click on [restore this version] (pretty sure that's part of rollback). That deletes edits by more than one vandal. But, rollback, in the wrong hands, can do a lot of damage. It should never be used to revert good faith edits. You can request it, but admins will notice if you are reverting vandalism per the guidelines and will often give it to a trusted user without their asking for it. This is a much smaller community than Enwiki. Admins here are on top of things and they pretty much know who's doing what. Just keep up the good work, gain experience and demonstrate that you understand the guidelines and policies. I hope that answers your question. Rus793 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, I meant on Twinkle, when I click dif it gives me three options: Rollback (agf), Rollback, Rollback (Vandal). I was wondering what these did and what AFG meant? Thanks, MiloDenn (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you click on "dif" where? AGF usually means assume good faith. Rus793 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new changes page, at the start of all edits MiloDenn (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that explains it. I generally don't go there. I regularly patrol the Special:NewPages list instead. TW is Twinkle. As for Rollback, I'm kind of hampered. As a rollbacker I may not see it the same as you would. I'll log out and come back under my IP and look. Rus793 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Came back as an IP and didn't see any rollback options. So I'm not sure what to tell you about the other option other than, again, AGF means assume good faith and TW is Twinkle. I hope this at least helps. Rus793 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You probably didn't have Twinkle enabled when you came back as an IP MiloDenn (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I can't duplicate your view as I'm set up. Anyway, I hope I was able to give you enough information to figure out what that was about. Until or unless a user is given the rollback permission, he or she can't use it anyway. Rus793 (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QD malfunction[change source]

(message deleted by sender as unintended)

@Pkbwcgs:You might want to rethink this. First of all, I did not write the page. Secondly, it is a talk page—we don't usually nominate talk pages for deletion. I did write several QD notices and warnings as I patrolled the pages the notices and warnings were about. If you have a question or an issue with any particular notice or warning, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. And while it doesn't bother me personally, some editors might get upset if you template regular editors here. It's not a policy but an essay: w:Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. It's more or less a courtesy extended to experienced editors here. However, I'm pretty sure this notice you posted here was unintentional. Rus793 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somehow, twinkle is being very naughty today. It accidently sent the message to you instead of the right user. Because of this, I will delete the quick deletion message from your talk page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did remove this message from his userpage. I thought pressing the Quick deletion button meant that it will send a reply to his talk page about the quick deletion for a page he created but it didn't. I didn't know how to use twinkle at first. Sorry about this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry about it. Mistakes are sometimes our best teachers. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Users talk pages[change source]

Just so you know users can remove any notice they want from their talk page except notice of an active ban or unblock notices while they are blocked/banned. Removing a notice is considered acknowledgement of receiving it. So edits like this are not vandalism. It is different for IP users where we do expect them to stay up. -DJSasso (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, understood. Rus793 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what can I work on? --Garvysolaz (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a list of various things you can do at Wikipedia:Simple start. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks. --Garvysolaz (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Main Page":[change source]

This has triggered something odd in the software, and I find I cannot delete it! I have no idea what is going on. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed it had no title. Let me try something, then see if you can delete it. Rus793 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I went to find it and discovered Aunt had deleted it. I remember it started with a slash character ( / ) then a word. It didn't occur to me at the time but I think it created a subpage. Had I caught that I could have simply deleted the slash character and it probably would not have caused a problem. Rus793 (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) This was a weird one. Since the name ended with a colon, I think the software was seeing it as a nameless page in the "Main Page" namespace (which, of course, is not a valid namespace). The page name didn't display, and there was no "delete" tab. There was, however, a "qd" tab, and I was able to use that to delete the page. I wonder if there's a way to use our edit filters or something to prevent creating pages that have names ending with colons. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you don't think it could have been the leading slash character that caused the problem? I thought since no page name preceded the slash, it might have defaulted to the Main Page. Also, you'd think a stray colon at the end of a page somewhere would have caused this problem before now. Maybe it did and nobody thought to say anything. It's good you figured out how to delete it though. There must be some space admins can experiment in to find out which character caused this. If so then an edit filter or abuse filter should be able to prevent it. Rus793 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Wisconsin articles[change source]

Hi, Rus. Would you please remember to include stub templates on these articles (at least the ones I saw were stubs). I think {{US-geo-stub}} is the best one to use. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I'll use then. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]