User talk:September 1988

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please include references[change | change source]

Angela, please start including references in your new articles. Including references is becoming more important here, because more and more articles are being deleted due to not showing notability. References are the best way to show notability, so please start including them.

For movie and actor articles, you could at least include a link to the IMDB entry for the movie or person. Just including that in an "other websites" section is considered a reference. IMDB is not considered a reliable reference, but it is at least a reference, and it's pretty standard to include an IMDB link for movies, TV series/episodes, and actors. For other kinds of articles, you can usually find other references in the enwiki article when there is one.

You asked me to guide you toward becoming an administrator. When someone is nominated to be an administrator, one of the things that people look at is the articles they have created, to see if they include everything they should. That would include indication of notability as shown with references. This isn't one of the specific requirements for being an admin, but it's something people usually want to see. A good step toward preparing to become an admin would be to make this improvement in your articles.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to repeat, please start including references in all of your articles. When you base an article on an enwiki article, there should be references there. When you get the information from anywhere else, you could use that source as a reference. This is especially important with stub articles, because in a short article it's harder to explain notability in the text. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Angela, I'd still like to see you include references in all of the articles you create. I was just looking at Branford, Connecticut and I see that it doesn't have any references. You must have gotten the info from somewhere, and that place might be useable as a reference (if it isn't another Wikipedia). For articles about cities, you might be able to find the city's official website and use something from that. Please try to do this and let me know if you need help with it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[change | change source]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, September 1988. You have new messages at Bluegoblin7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Goblin 02:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Twinkle warnings[change | change source]

Hi, Angela. Thanks for all the anti-vandalism work you do! I'd like to ask you a favor. When you warn a user because they removed something from a page (like you did for changes to Stevie Nicks), could you use the warning option that says "Removal of content, blanking" instead of the general vandalism option? That would help us see exactly what kinds of things the user did. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles about people[change | change source]

Hi, Angela. Your articles in general are looking better these days! I just wanted to mention that at the beginning of an article about a person, where you give the birth date in parentheses, please spell out the word "born" instead of abbreviating it. There could be people who don't understand what the abbreviation means. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Honda Pilot[change | change source]

Would you add something to the paragraph about the Pilot being compared to other vehicles? Just saying it was compared to other vehicles doesn't really tell the reader anything. It leaves us wondering why we care that it was compared, and whether people thought it was better or worse than the other vehicles. Please don't just remove the paragraph, but give more information about it being compared. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Suge Knight[change | change source]

Angela, when writing about someone's criminal history, you have to be very, very careful to be absolutely accurate. You stated in this article that Knight had been in prison "because of many crimes, mainly assault". I carefully read through the enwiki article, and it doesn't say that. I see mention of only two times that he was in prison, which is not "many". Those two times were for violation of either probation or parole, not for assault. Wikipedia can get in serious legal trouble saying things like that when they aren't true. If it's hard for you to get this kind of information straight, it might be a good idea for you not to write about sensitive areas like this in biographies. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ice Ice Baby[change | change source]

Hi, Angela. I just looked at Ice Ice Baby. I think you need to be more specific where it says that the song was not successful. How exactly was it not successful? Just saying that a song was or wasn't successful doesn't really tell the reader much. Please change it to be more specific. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Leigh[change | change source]

Angela, you reverted the redirect and I waited to see you show notability. Unfortunately just writing "The album received very favorable reviews" does not show notability. But it doesn't seem this one can be fixed the same way as you did with So Real. To help you out I copied part of the section from the enwiki article which shows notability another way. Rus793 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MMMBop, and using references[change | change source]

Angela, thanks for including a reference in MMMBop. The reference was with the statement that the song hit number one in several countries. However, the site linked in the reference doesn't say anything about the song reaching number one. It doesn't say anything at all about the song's chart position.

The reason for using references is to have a source for the statement that the reference goes with. The reference tells our readers where we got the information in our articles. Sources have to include the fact(s) that they are used to support. The reference you used is in the enwiki article, but it's used for different facts. There is a reference at enwiki for the number one chart positions, but that reference is a dead link. Therefore, I am just going to remove it from the article. Please find a different, active source for something in the article.

If you use a reference from an enwiki article, you have to do one of two things:

  1. Make sure the source is not a dead link and use it for the same information as at enwiki. If you remove some information as part of simplifying an article, you have to also remove any references that go with the part that you remove.
  2. Read the source for yourself, find a fact in it that you are using in the article, and use the source for that fact.

I'm really concerned about this. The sources are very important here. If we don't source the articles properly, then what we have is called "original research", which is not allowed and which is not what people expect from Wikipedia. Please think about whether you might have done something similar with other references you've included in articles. Please be extra careful to make sure that any references you use actually have the information in them that they're used for in the article. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gastric bypass[change | change source]

Angela, this article is the kind I was talking about when we talked recently about technical articles. I have just simplified and edited the article. I'm afraid that you ended up some statements in the article that were not true. The first one was about the stomach being redirected. The stomach is divided, but not redirected. It is other parts of the gastrointestinal tract that are redirected.

The other area was in the paragraph about the Roux-en-Y surgery being one of the most difficult. That appears to have been taken from the enwiki article, in the third paragraph of the surgical techniques section. That paragraph was talking about a specific way of doing the surgery -- "limited access techniques" (such as laparoscopy). However, you left that part out. The short hospital stay, reduced discomfort, etc. are benefits of doing the surgery in that specific way. Your text said they were benefits of the surgery in general, which isn't true.

In the past I've said that you need to make sure you understand everything you're reading before you try to simplify it. I know, though, that it's hard to be aware of when you don't understand something. At this point, if you want to work on technical, scientific articles, I think it would be best if you work on them in userspace and get someone to check them over before putting them in mainspace. I've tried to avoid asking you to do that. I know you aren't deliberately putting wrong information into articles, but you are putting wrong information into them, and I can't think of another way to prevent it. If you have any other ideas on how to prevent it, I'm interested in hearing them. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Band and musician categories[change | change source]

Hi, Angela. You might not have known, but the musician categories are for individual people, not groups. Please use the band/musical group categories for articles about bands. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning reviews in movie articles[change | change source]

Hi Angela. In movie articles, when you mention the reviews that a movie got (positive, negative, mixed, or whatever), the word should be "reviews" (plural), not "review". For example, in one recent article, you wrote "The movie got negative review from critics." If there was more than one critic, then there was more than one review, so "review" needs to be plural. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Word lists[change | change source]

Hi, Angela. Great to have you here.

If you use a sandbox to create articles, put the template {{User sandbox|links=yes}} at the top of your sandbox. That will give you links to all the word lists. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones[change | change source]

To answer your question to Auntof6: A tropical cyclone (in the US, called a hurricane) would never hit Iowa at full strength. Iowa could get some rain and wind from a hurricane that lost most of its strength. It would be no worse than any other storm there. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Everlong[change | change source]

Amanda, again (see Amanda Leigh above), the page did not claim notability nor did anything prove notability. Thank you for adding a source citation, but it only verified the album was by Foo Fighters. It did not prove the notability of the album. Technically it could be challenged because it didn't verify the entire statement. You need to cite a source that directly supports the statement, not part of it. However, the point is moot because it didn't meet the notability criteria and was redirected. Again, there was consensus on what to do with articles like this one on albums that did not themselves prove notable. That was to redirect them to the group's page, if there was one, or delete them (RfD). Here is an archive of the consensus reached on this point: Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_111#Our recent spate of new album stubs: a proposal. But consensus is not cast in stone. You can go against the consensus of other editors if you can give a good enough reason on the talk page. But, just restoring it to the way it was accomplishes nothing. It just makes work for other editors. I don't mind at all you reverting the redirect—if you edit the article to show proof of notability and add reliable source citations directly proving notability. But that may not be possible. You can't make something notable if it isn't. But, good in-depth research on your part may find the album is notable. I did a cursory search and didn't find anything which is why the redirect. Lastly, please remember to not shoot the messenger. I'd be happy to help you anytime I can. Thank you for understanding. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RfD nomination of House party[change | change source]

An editor has requested deletion of House party, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/House party and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Hydriz (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Gamine[change | change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Gamine, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Gamine and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Hydriz (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Coming out[change | change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Coming out, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Coming out and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Hydriz (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

New articles[change | change source]

Angela, I have just checked your new article 2015 Philadelphia train derailment. Once again, you got some of the details wrong in the process of simplifying. Specifically, you said "Seven cars, including the locomotive, went off the track and flipped on their side." The problems with this are:

  • The seven cars didn't include the locomotive. There were seven cars and the locomotive.
  • Not all of the cars flipped on their sides, only some of them. You can see that in pictures from the accident.

I've tried many times to explain that when you simplify you need to do it in a way that doesn't change the meaning of what is said, especially when the new meaning is untrue. If you aren't able to do that, then you need to get someone to check your articles before you publish them. Right now I'm asking you to do that voluntarily, but I will make it a requirement if the problem continues. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Poltergeist (2015 movie)[change | change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Poltergeist (2015 movie), an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Poltergeist (2015 movie) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Poltergeist and movie articles in general[change | change source]

You probably saw that this article was kept because other editors added information to show why it is notable. Please look at what was added so that you get an idea of what we should have in movie articles. You usually include genre, plot, cast, release date, box office performance, summary of critical reception, and external links to things like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes. Those are all good things to have, but they don't necessarily show notability unless there is something unique about those things. It would be helpful for you to read the guideline on notability for movies.

When you write articles about movies, please include information to show how they are notable. This might mean including more of the information from the enwiki article. That in turn could mean having to do more simplifying, which I know is difficult, but it's what we need in articles. We're getting stricter on showing notability, so this is important. Without it, more articles could be nominated for deletion.

One of the criteria for movie notability is that the movie "has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". You might want to pick movies that have won major awards (Academy Awards, Golden Globe Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards, BAFTAs, awards at the Cannes film festival, etc.) and mention that in the article. For example, we don't have articles for every movie that has won the Academy Award for Best Picture -- that could be a good place to start.

Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Angela, if you don't mind my adding one thing: It is not always easy to prove a movie is notable before it is released. Most of the time, you will have an easier time showing notability if the movie is already out. So don't be surprised if people give a harder time to movies not yet out, which is what happened this time. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Anne Braden[change | change source]

Hello Angela, I am sorry, I just could not resist changing the article "Anne Braden" even though it is in your userspace. As you might know, English is not my first language; I associate "immerse" with mixing liquids, so I replaced it with an (in my opinion) better term. Sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

about your urgent message on my talk page[change | change source]

(copied from my talk page and brought here) Hey Fylbecatulous: Could you help me out on making Grumpy Old Men, Grumpier Old Men, Consenting Adults, Cat Chaser, Cyborg and Chances Are? I'm having a hard time trying to prove notability on these articles. Help me please. Angela Maureen (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Angela. Sorry but no I cannot help you. I did over your article for Sneakers (movie) because it is a wonderful movie and what you wrote was not even trying. I also added to Doctor Zhivago for the same reason. What you have written in these articles leaves out so much that they are not even truthful. By not including more facts (such as all the actors) and more of the plot or the circumstances why a movie was made it is not telling the whole story. This is unfair to our readers and unfair to us as editors. You need to pay attention to what has been said to you in a very nice way by some of the admins. You either must learn to do this better or work on something else.
I too have a disability and it took me about five hours to write Sneakers again yesterday. I did it so it would not be deleted. Not to help you avoid the work you need to be doing. Sorry. I worked on the Poltergeist movie so it would not be deleted and then got scolded in the deletion conversation. This hurt my feelings and I almost left. Do you realise how many editors are taking time to clean up your articles? You have given me a list of six movies you want me to take my time on for you? I am really surprised... Fylbecatulous talk 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Help needed request[change | change source]

From my talk page copied here: 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) Response on your talk page User:Rus793 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Angela, are you asking to find out how to do what I did on Grumpy Old Men? If so I can help. But if you're asking me to do improve all these stubs for you then no, I have other things I need to do. And in fact, that really isn't helping you anyway. To really help you is to show you how to do things. These stubs you created, the thing is, most if not all are actually notable. The simple truth is, and what others have been telling you, is that they need more information. They need source citations to verify the statements. Pictures don't hurt either. Make them bigger and better articles.
In the case of Grumpy Old Men, just go take a look at what was done. I copied and simplified some information from the enwiki article (and attributed it on the talk page). I found a source that had a nice short description of the plot and cited it. I rephrased some of the information so it wouldn't be a copyright violation. I found a couple more citations and added them. Not very hard at all and most of it is stuff I've seen you do in the past. I know you can cite sources. I know you have most, if not all the skills needed to compile complete articles.
Here's an interesting statistic. You created 11 of these short stubs on the 28th. Given an average of I'd guess 6 sentences each that's a total of 66 sentences. That's a pretty substantial article if it was all on one subject! Fact is, it took you longer to divide all that work among 11 stubs than it would have if divided into, say, three articles. With the improvements the Grumpy Old Men article has maybe 20 sentences. Does it show notability now? Compare it to the en:Wikipedia:Notability (films) 'Other evidence of notability' section. Can you see which criteria it meets? Look at the source citations in the article as it is now. The criteria "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is met by using at least three. I did a search for "Grumpy Old Men + Reviews". And yes, citing sources isn't the fun part for most editors. But the more you do it the easier it becomes. In most cases they are needed to show notability. I spent maybe 30 minutes to do the bulk of the improvements on Grumpy Old Men. About half that time was finding sources. Bigger stubs and full articles are what we need most here. If these little stubs don't get improved now, sooner or later they'll probably be deleted anyway. If not for notability then for being small sub-stubs that never got improved. I said I wouldn't do these for you but I'll help by telling you how. But you could save Grumpier Old Men for last—just in case. OK, so what can I help you with? User:Rus793 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Angela, it occurs to me perhaps I'm being a little unfair. Grumpier Old Men is actually one of the easiest to improve and show notability. It was also a very funny movie. So it should likewise be a fun article to improve. One way is to copy parts of the enwiki article and simplify them. If you do don't forget to provide attribution on the talk page. Go to Metacritic.com by typing "metacritic Grumpier Old Men" in your browser. There, pick a critic's review. In the lower right of each box (that has one) is a link to that critic's review article. So it finds the articles you need for sources for you. Pretty easy huh? Aunt has suggested before just getting the source citations from the enwiki article and that might be even easier. Either way, it isn't very hard to find sources and prove notability. Another thing that makes it easy is that Grumpier Old Men got at least one major award. It shouldn't take you long at all to improve it. The other stubs you mentioned above won't be a problem either. As for articles getting tagged for notability, the tag stays there until someone improves the article and locates the necessary citations. Because a stub has a notability tag doesn't mean it will be deleted right away. So relax and work on them as you have the time. Anyway, please ask if there is anything else I can help you with. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(talk page stalker) Angela, I'm sorry, but I removed the plot section you added to Grumpier Old Men because it was pretty much unsimplified from the enwiki article. I saw that you changed a few words, but that wasn't enough, and some of the changes you made actually made the text more complex. If you want to add the plot section, I suggest you work on it in a sandbox in your userspace and have someone review it before you put it in the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability tags[change | change source]

Angela, please don't remove notability tags from articles that you wrote. If you add information that you think shows notability, please ask someone else to take a look and see if they agree. If they agree, they can remove the tag. Also, just adding references doesn't necessarily show notability. The text has to say what is notable about the subject. For now, I'm putting some of those tags back. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do your articles now show notability?[change | change source]

(From my talk page): The articles Consenting Adults, Woman in Gold, The Longest Ride and Get Hard now claim notability.

Hi Angela, I have looked at all four articles for you. So have you done any more work on them after Auntof6 put the notability tags back? It seems not. So first, if they put the tags back and cautioned just above that they put them back; my clue is that this is still a valid tagging. For now also I agree.
  • Here is the guideline for movies again: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenJ81/Wikipedia:Notability_(movies). Ask "do my articles prove notability by this standard?
  • Helpful hints: the closest of these to be notable is Woman in Gold. But it needs more work and information is available for it on English Wikipedia. You have an article you wrote on Maria Altmann, who this movie is about. That article still does not say a lot either. You need to put in her article that now she has a movie made about her. It would help to put in your movie article why she is famous and a little of her story. (Don't copy and paste though). You have a "Production" section but you haven't written about how the movie team made a replica of the painting; then add the source that is given. (Sources! Nothing is true on Wikipedia until it is sourced). You have that the movie was screened at a film festival. That is important. I would use the entire title of the festival and the section it was entered in and add the reference!! OK? ツ Fylbecatulous talk 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability[change | change source]

Angela, Notability is talked about on simplewiki quite a bit. And I mentioned earlier that reading the Notability Guidelines is important to understanding them. It also helps to learn more about notability by watching the Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. The discussions bring up notability often and you can get very good examples and explanations of how it applies to this situation or that. Not just on movies but on a variety of subjects. For example, in the discussion of Em Família notice how there are several very good points made about notability. There's a bullet list near the bottom. It would be a very good idea to keep a page in Notebook or Word or whatever text program you use on the subject of notability. Then when you find something that has good information like this one does, copy and paste it into your notes. Anyway, I hope this helps. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song)[change | change source]

Angela, the chart table in this article had broken syntax in it -- the table didn't display right, and the references in it didn't display right, either. Because of that, I removed the chart section. When you create an article, please use the preview function to see if it looks right. If something looks wrong, either fix it or don't include it in the article until you can fix it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Give You What You Like[change | change source]

If you compare what you had on this stub and what it is now, you'll notice the section copied, simplified and attributed from the enwiki article. Notice it has two reviews with source citations. You can work on it more if you like, but just saying it got positive reviews would only prevent it from being QD:A4 (Quick Delete, as not notable). However, if at any time an editor felt it didn't show notability, they could take it to an RfD because it didn't clearly show notability. See: en:Wikipedia:Notability (music) "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page... the article itself must document notability." User:Rus793 (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Saying it got positive reviews isn't a claim of notability by itself, so that alone wouldn't prevent a QD:A4, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Another note on this article: you wrote "The lyrics are about loneliness through swapping sex". The enwiki article says it's about "combating loneliness through swapping sex". By leaving out the idea of "combating" loneliness, your description changes the meaning to something that isn't true. As I have asked you many times, please be sure you don't change the meaning when you simplify articles. Please take this seriously: we don't want incorrect information in our articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)