User talk:Tropical Storm Angela/Archive 3

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

Quick deletion of Funny Face

Ambox warning pn.svg

The page you wrote, Funny Face, 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. Baseball Watcher 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Negligent homicide

Can you tell me why you reverted my change? What was incorrect about it? That article really needs to be changed because it's written in legalese, pretty much the opposite of simple English.

I undid the change because of the info: fact is NH wouldn't regard vases. It really regards automobiles, certain job or career related work accidents or care for people in nursing homes or psychiatric hospital wards. That would be negligent homicide. September 1988 09:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. Those may be the most common cases, but the legal definition is not that overly specific. However, it's probably better to use a common case for an example, so I'll change that. Brazzy (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be preferable if you could add some references. Osiris (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please use simple language

I know I've asked you this before, but you're still not using simple language. Please use simple language when you write articles, and use the same words for things every time. For example, when saying what actor had what role in a movie, I've seen you use the terms "is", "acts as", "carries the role", and one or two others. The correct way to say it is "actor plays character". That is just one example. Look at changes people have made to your recent articles for other examples.

Another thing you need to do: when giving a birthdate in parentheses for a living person, include the word "born" instead of just giving the date. For a dead person, only the dates are needed (no "born" or "died"), so that's a little inconsistent.

Please keep trying to write simple language so that other editors don't have to simply and copy edit your articles. As I suggested in the past, you could use one of the online tools that tell you how simple your text is. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Incorrect information in articles

When you simplify articles from English Wikipedia (enwiki), be sure not to change the meaning. For example, in Softcore pornography, you wrote that softcore pornography is still photography with erotic content. That implies that only still photographs can be softcore pornography. However, that is not true and it is not what the enwiki article says. Softcore porn can be still photographs, movies, or written.

I don't know where you got the plot information for the article about the movie Burlesque, but the details were wrong. Your text said that the movie is about "several women losing their waitress jobs and then moving to Los Angeles to dance with others". Only one woman in the movie did that, not several, and she didn't lose her job, she quit. She didn't go there to dance, she went to sing, and just happened to end up dancing as well. If the description of the plot was taken from enwiki, then this is another example of you needing to be more careful when you simplify. If you got it from somewhere else, then I suggest you not use that source any more.

As usual, let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that Auntof6 - I'll be really careful of these sources I have. The sources may have been incorrect. I'll be more careful. Merry Christmas also. Angela Maureen 08:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Change summaries

When you post your change summaries for the En attribution, you don't need to keep saying "adding English Wikipedia attribute just like Auntof6 mentioned". You can just say "adding English Wikipedia attribution." The "just like Auntof6 mentioned" part is unnecessary and looks silly. Thanks, Only (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It would also be good if you used better edit summaries when you create articles. "Taking something into our heart" isn't really a good edit summary. I was letting that go, but I decided I needed to say something when your edit summary for Tampon was "we now have tampon in our hearts". The only thing you really need to put for a new article is "new article". Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Connell

I see the same issue with the article Elizabeth Connell that I saw yesterday. It does not state why she is notable. I'll edit the article to show you some of the things I tagged it for and how they can be fixed. You might find the following guidelines very helpful as you create more articles here. I hope this helps. Rus793 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (music)
Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages
Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia

The reason that I didn't include lots of info: half of the info is personal and without proper sources. BLP or person articles need very strong sources before I can make those. Furthermore, on Simple English Wikipedia we have to be really careful or our wording will be erased/reverted.

Angela Maureen 15:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand. She's not a BLP (Biography(ies) of Living Persons) however good sources are always a good idea. The reasons for the 'careful wording' is to use simplified easy to understand English. I tried to do this with the changes I made. Hopefully they're a decent example of how to simplify (as much as possible with a technical subject), how to wikify (using seWikipedia articles, Wiktionary, and explanations), and to try to watch ambiguous statements that might confuse readers. Feel free to edit anything you like in the article. I just wanted to show you what it was these tags and QD (Quick Delete requests) were all about. I hope this helps and if you have questions, just ask. If I don't know something we have several very good editors and administrators here that would be glad to help. Rus793 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of The Interview

An editor has requested deletion of The Interview, 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/2014/The Interview 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) 08:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tropical Storm Angela. You have new messages at Thesixthstaff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thesixthstaff (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tropical Storm Angela. You have new messages at Thesixthstaff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thesixthstaff (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive header

You said you were looking for an archive header to use on your archive pages, {{talk archive navigation}} is a good one. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How to sign posts

When you sign something you write on a talk page or in a discussion, please do it in a way that includes links to your user and/or talk pages. When you just put "Angela Maureen" with no links, people have to look at the page history to see who that is. The easiest was to sign is to put four tildes (~~~~), which get changed to the standard signature when you save the page. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've set the signature for the standard code. My username September 1988 will be seen from this moment on whenever I make four tildes on talk pages. My real name, however, is Angela Maureen. September 1988 04:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's a way you can make your signature read "Angela Maureen" but still have a link to your userpage. I don't know how, because I've never done it, but you could ask someone who has. I think User:Beefball has made a custom signature -- maybe he could help. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Got it custom made. I hope this helps. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent -- thanks very much! Just remember to keep the signature on the same line as the text of your post, not on a separate line. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hehe…I don't think you're Shining Road…Are You?

I was looking at your User page, when I saw that you had Rollback and Patroller rights. I curiously clicked verify and saw that it verified that Shiningroad has those privileges. I assume that you took those boxes from his/her user page. I can fix them if you want. --Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't known Shiningroad existed when I got these boxes eight months ago. I retrieved the boxes before I even heard of Shiningroad. I find your accusations very offensive and highly embarrassing. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Pending is not accusing you of being Shiningroad. He's saying that the patroller userbox on your user page no longer works, because when you click on the link it brings up Shiningroad's name instead of yours. Osiris (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed patroller userbox. Embarrassing things are the last thing I need. I actually carry Depression and Learning Issues, so an embarrassing situation I can't really afford at this point. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean to cause trouble, I was only trying to help. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 20:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Love-shyness

An editor has requested deletion of Love-shyness, 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/2014/Love-shyness 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. Osiris (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Arrogance

An editor has requested deletion of Arrogance, 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/2014/Arrogance 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. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 20:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Embarrassing Feeling on Simple English/The Rules Sound More 1978 Rather Than Now

Somebody erased my article Nonverbal learning disorder and called the page "complex". You know, sometimes, I feel totally embarrassed and humiliated even editing here. I won't call that Simple English Wikipedia name; the ones, however, who erased my article, saying it was complex, have embarrassed me! This makes Simple English Wikipedia far more relevant for 1978 rather than for 2014! If Simple were around in 1978, the rule that Wikipedia editors use here now might have been more relevant then rather than now. I have depression, generalized anxiety and learning troubles, and I try editing and creating articles with my best ability. That, however, ain't even good enough to certain Wikipedia editors (I rather not mention their names for fear of personal attack accusation). I cannot really do any better! Angela Maureen (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Angela, I saw your post here and I'm sorry you feel embarrassed. I have worked with the user who deleted your page for a while now and I know that would not be their intention. I hope this doesn't put you off editing here. What I have done for you is restored your article but moved it to your sandbox located here - If you go there and do some work on the article then I will be more than happy to move it back to the mainspace when you're ready. Leave me a message on my talk page when you're finished and I'll move it back. It is quite complex. Maybe you understand it well but I don't. Our project is for people who are learning English or are younger - I'm neither and I still feel it is difficult to follow. Try explaining some of the bigger words? Good luck! Kennedy (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kennedy for the Restoring

I won't get too excited. Thanks, though, for restoring page Nonverbal learning disorder. Fact is, though, I can only write so simple here. Sorry for feeling embarrassed, though I do have the said health problems that I said the last post. Please remember: I try really hard to be simple over on Simple English. Angela Maureen (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see my words above. It is not ready to be on the mainspace. Please work on the article in your sandbox before moving back. Kennedy (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Replied on my talkpage. Kennedy (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Replied again, regards Kennedy (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tropical Storm Angela. You have new messages at Pending's talk page.
Message added 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

BLPs... references

Hello, Angela. In October last year, I mentioned on your talk page about adhering to the WP:BLP policy. Each biographical article about a living person should have at least one reliable reference on it. Since then, you've gone back to creating unreferenced BLPs. Today, it was Kate Pierson. The following were also created by you in January, and still need at least one reference each:

  • Twink Caplan (referenced)
  • Rachel Blanchard (marked/cited)
  • Bérénice Bejo (marked/cited)
  • Dominique McElligott (cited)
  • Sue Ane Langdon (cited)
  • Margot Robbie (marked/cited)
  • Ed Schultz (marked/cited)
  • Bob Vila (marked/referenced)
  • Katarina Čas (referenced)
  • Harley Jane Kozak (cited)
  • Kelly Carlson (marked/cited)

You're doing it knowingly, because you're adding the template on top when you create them. This is not acceptable. You must source your biographies. Osiris (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hang on one second: just recently you took out unreliable sources on certain articles I created prior. Reason I didn't add source: quite a few were questionable at best and not good at worst. Questionable sources aren't good on Simple English. And I wouldn't do that knowingly. Sometimes when I add a source, spam notice comes up; it says blacklist. Recently, I tried adding For reasons unknown, the spam filter blacklisted it. I'm adding source far more often than I used to. Any other issues, inform me. Angela Maureen (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed links to BuzzFeed because it was being used as a reference for claims that required higher quality sources. None of the articles above were involved in that. These were created without sources. is on the global spam blacklist; it's a gossip website. I appreciate that you've been making an effort, and you were improving where it comes to adding sources. But if you can't find one reliable source for a person, then you shouldn't create an article for that person. It's the policy. You need the references before you can create the articles. Osiris (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Also replied on my talk page. Osiris (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What is happening with these? Have you found any sources to reference them with yet? Osiris (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reliable source I can find are few and far between. For certain websites, when I come in, I get redirected to with blank screens and without my asking. Newspaper articles are best, however. Others, like I mentioned are just questionable or not appropriate for Simple English. Whatever are appropriate, I will use. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't understand this though. Have you looked at the versions on the English Wikipedia? Their articles about Vila, Schultz, Robbie, Carlson, Bejo and Langdon all contain lists of some pretty good-quality resources that you could cite. So those are available to use at a glance! I can't understand how you can't find any... That just doesn't make sense to me. If I search "Rachel Blanchard" on Google, on the very first results page is a link to her biography on Yahoo! – it's the fourth link down. It's been ten days... Osiris (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fantastic, Angela. Regarding using the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), just be aware of this and this and note that it is usually not considered a reliable source since it is written by users. Anyway, thank you for following that up. Osiris (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


When you copy an article about a person here from enwiki, please don't change it to say the person was born near a place when the enwiki article says they were born in the place. Doing that makes the statement false. You did this with Melanie Chartoff. I know I've mentioned this before. Is there some reason you make that kind of change? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! The many sources regarding her said either West Haven or New Haven; I just couldn't decide. Sometimes, that gets confusing. I can't always decide whatever to put if that happens. Angela Maureen (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
In cases like that, it might be best to either say that it's uncertain where she was born, or not to talk about her birthplace at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Lenexa, Kansas

Please be careful when you simplify text from enwiki. In this article, you stated that Lenexa does not have public schools. That isn't true. What it doesn't have is its own public school district. Its schools are in a district that covers multiple cities. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


I have just simplified some more of your articles. I can see that you are trying to simplify them yourself from the enwiki versions. However, in some cases you are either changing them in ways that give incorrect meanings (like the birthplace issue I mentioned before), changing them in ways that make them more complex, or changing them so that they don't make sense. For example:

  • In Mike Von Erich, you chose the word "opposite" instead of "unlike", which gave a sentence that didn't make sense. You also used "devastated" instead of "diagnosed": that isn't what the enwiki article said, and we have no source saying that he was devastated.
  • In Gas gangrene, you used the phrase "urgent medical emergency". "Emergency" already implies that something is urgent, so the word "urgent" didn't need to be added.
  • Also in Gas gangrene, you said that "People with gas gangrene often have snake bites, diabetes mellitus (any type) or certain tumors." That is not what the enwiki article says. The article says that those things can cause gas gangrene, but it doesn't say that they often cause it or even that they are usually the cause.

I'm not sure how to help you with this. One thing that might help is for you to be absolutely sure you understand what the wording means in the original article before you try to simplify it. If you can think of anything else, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting really frustrated: really, I ain't doing this on purpose, alright. Listen, I do (at certain times) use tools, though they will not always tell me how complex or simple my wording is. I'm getting frustrated and embarrassed (again) with Simple English Wikipedia: the problem that I'm having is that no matter how good I do, it's never enough! I feel that because of how the more "simple" words are chosen rather than the "complex", (the term "however" gets removed most of the time, and "close to" is omitted), the Simple would have worked much better in 1944 (provided Simple English Wikipedia were out then) rather than for 2014. I'm feeling embarrassed because no matter how professional I edit Simple English, it's never really good enough! If things continue getting worse on Simple, I may have to take eighteen months off from editing Wikipedia. Angela Maureen (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thats rather dramatic. Why not just take extra time and care over your wording? Myself and Auntof6 are being very patient with you to help. Try to understand what we're saying. Kennedy (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I just feel sometimes other editors expect perfection from me, and that isn't something I can really achieve. I cannot always understand why whatever words I put into articles are "complex" according to certain Simple editors. I try always putting simple words when possible. I'm with Simple English for the long haul, and I wanna continue trying to make pages I create to the best of whatever abilities I carry. Angela Maureen (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We're not expecting perfection; your articles often do not meet the minimum standard. Kennedy (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee State University

Some notes on this one:

  • You wrote that this is the only Black university in Tennessee. That is not what the enwiki article says. It says that it is the only state-funded historically black university there. You left out "state-funded" and "historically". There could be other black universities in Tennessee that are not state-funded and/or not historically black. Being a historically black school is not exactly the same as being a black school. This is an example of what I was referring to when I asked you to be sure you understood what an article is saying before you change the wording.
  • You wrote that the current name was first used "in or around 1968". The enwiki article says in 1968. This is another example of you making the wording less precise.
  • You had two categories on this article: Category:Tennessee and Category:1909 establishments. Neither of those is the most important thing about what the subject is: a university.

Let me know if you have any questions about these points. I'm thinking it might be a good idea for you to develop articles in your userspace and have someone look at them before you make regular articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unwelcome Feeling/I Should Really Abandon Simple English

Alright, something is wrong around here. I'm feeling really psychotic and unwelcome here on Simple English. Arrogance from others (I cannot mention names as to avoid personal attack accusation), strong pressure and increasingly hot editing due to demands from others may cause me to abandon Simple English Wikipedia altogether. The song "Everything She Wants" had a line saying one step further, my back will break. That's how I feel on Simple English. So many things aren't good enough; editors accuse me of getting certain things wrong — I can't take anymore! I feel like abandoning Simple English Wikipedia, moving into my bed and crying all week. The simplifying I perform is questionable or not right (other editors think), and no matter what I do, nothing really works! That's a huge reason Simple English Wikipedia would be working better in 1944 or for 1964 rather than for 2014. I create articles with my best ability, I try to revert or take back vandal edits — yet somehow, I don't feel welcome or loved around here! My way of editing includes adding references for many articles and just helping out, yet I feel not accepted. I feel like whatever I get is condemnation by other editors! Angela Maureen (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're taking things the wrong way here. Several editors have given you advice about getting your content creation up to certain standards demanded by the community. I see advice, patience, help, and expressed offers of additional help should you need it. It shouldn't equate to arrogance in anyone's mind. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes. I've made a dozen or so myself since this morning. But I always look back and check to see what I've done, and then correct any mistakes that I see. I might miss some every now and then, but I always make the effort because it's not difficult. If you are truly doing the best you can, then that's all we can ask. But not everybody is cut out for writing content. It takes a considerable degree of familiarity with the intricacies of the English language to rewrite it in a simple form. If nothing you try is working, then ask for help. Work on it in your userspace as suggested. Proof-read your additions, as I do. But if this is your reaction when an editor asks you to review some changes you've made, maybe it is best to take a break from content creation. There are plenty of other tasks that need extra hands, tasks that you'll find less stressful. You can email me if you ever want to talk. Osiris (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Understanding text: Vesper Lynd

I have just simplified this article. One specific thing I want to mention is your description of the character as working "with a liaison agency". In the enwiki article, this character is described as being a "foreign liaison agent", but that does not mean she works for a "liaison agency". The character being a liaison agent just means that she helps two groups communicate or work together. The group she works for is not a "liaison agency". Please, please, make sure you understand what text is saying before you change it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're still misinterpreting things in enwiki articles

Today I simplified the articles Lambada and Grinding that you created. Both of these articles had complex words and sentences. I know you have said that you have trouble simplifying things, but you must simplify them if you write here. Examples of complex words you used are:

  • In Grinding: routine, certain, attempted, explicit, preceded
  • In Lambada: pronounced, revealed

The articles also both had incorrect facts. If you change the language in an article before adding it here, you have to first understand what the original language means. Here are examples of the incorrect or misleading things that were in the articles you created:

  • In Grinding: you said that people tried to ban the dance "due to its explicit fashions". The enwiki article said "due to its explicit nature". In this case, the word "explicit" means "sexual", and the word "nature" means the characteristics of the dance. Both of those words should have been simplified. "Fashions" means clothing, which is not what the issue was -- the dance is sexual by itself no matter what the dancers are wearing.
  • In Lambada: you said "Steps are usually side to side, turning, although not front to back." This sounds like "front to back" refers to steps, but it actually refers to the dancers.

If you create articles here, you must write in simple language, and you must get the facts correct. I've tried to figure out how to help you. The only thing I can think of that I haven't tried is to require you to work in your userspace and get another editor's approval before creating an article. I don't want to have to do that, but I'm considering it. If you can think of anything else that might help, please say what it is. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad Feelings Getting Worse/I'm Feeling Like Crying for Days

I'm getting totally nauseated even working here. I'm approaching wits end, because really, I ain't moving anywhere no matter how talented and progressive I am in regard to page creation and using certain words. Listen: even if I use the tool, they don't always imply how complex certain words are! I should abandon the Simple English Wikipedia outright for two-three weeks, relax in bed and cry! I'm feeling hurt by others saying my work is never good enough. I wanna keep editing Simple English Wikipedia many years ahead. Things, however, are getting quite dangerous here for me! I cannot find anything else that might help. I'm becoming really sick inside my stomach having to always deal with reprimand from other Wikipedia editors for using certain words. Being reprimanded just for simplifying the best ways I understand makes me feel like barfing or crying all day non stop! I'm only human! Angela Maureen (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright. I thought about something here. I'm now realizing that one particular Simple Wikipedia user has been harassing me. This editor makes me feel highly uncomfortable and embarrassed when I'm creating pages here. Regardless of how excellent I try creating pages here, this editor wants to require for me working within user space and getting other editors' approvals before I create certain pages! I'm getting extremely tired of harassment by this editor! Without any regard whatever of how I'm trying to simplify things, this editor condemns me, saying I'm misstating the facts, lying or putting incorrect information. I'm getting incredibly nauseated having to always deal with this editor! This Simple English Wikipedia editor has driven me totally psychotic and sick inside my stomach to the point of just throwing up! I ain't mentioning this Simple editor's name under the fear of personal attack accusation. I will, however, indicate one hint: the user harassing me is an administrator having a number rhyming with fix in the name. Oftentimes, I'm scared to even perform Simple English Wikipedia editing! Can somebody please help?! Angela Maureen (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I am another administrator here, and have been part of Wikipedia for around 6 years so I feel I can help. However, your comments above are bordering on a personal attack on a user who is trying to help you. I commented to another user that I thought you were actually trolling us with your cries of help and use of language which seems to try to make us feel guilty for telling you that you are not contributing helpfully to this project. I am going to ask you to take an extended break from Wikipedia. It is not life-or-death, it is a voluntary project. If it is stressing you out then do not edit here. I am actually very close to blocking you if it were not for WP:AGF and I am unsure if you are actually upset or if you are trolling. Either way, I for one do not appreciate you making these unfounded allegations that you are being harrassed by a trusted user here. Stop. Now. Count this as a warning, any further outbursts of accusations towards users will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kennedy (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I would not troll. I am extremely upset. These rules are getting tighter and sometimes, I don't always know whatever I should do. I'm sorry if the comments border on attack; I wouldn't attack someone purposely. I just feel totally unwelcome here, and that things have gotten too hot. Please help me (and again, I'm not trolling) Angela Maureen (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I can easily determine that you're not trolling. You're genuinely upset. I have a good understanding of psychology and mental illness. You're trying your best. You're emotionally sensitive and have an unusual way of writing which shows autistic tendencies. Try using a thesaurus to help find simple words that have a similar meaning to more complex words and phrases.
Look at the improvements that other editors have made to articles you've created. Try to learn from that, rather than feeling hurt through criticism.
You're not being accused of lying; you're being criticised for making mistakes.
Jim Michael (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Car-free movement

Thanks for creating this article. It's a very interesting topic. Unfortunately, it still needed a lot more simplifying, so I have moved it to User:September 1988/Car-free movement for you to work on some more. I see that you shortened the sentences (good job on that!), but there are a lot of complex words still there.

I am not harassing you by doing this. I am doing it to maintain the quality of our project. I'm still willing to help you, but I'd understand if you'd rather get help from someone else. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What are the complex words in the article, and what are the better replacement words? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I revised several areas in car-free movement, making page far less complicated. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Governors of Iowa

I replied to your note on this article's talk page. Please take care of the issues there before you create any more articles. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandal warning

Hello, do you use any script/gadget to warn vandals? If you use one, it's broken. I don't know whether you noticed this or not but apparently if you warn a user once, then the succeeding warnings will not show up in the page. See this diff for example. The comment tags (<!-- -->) are not typed in correctly. Instead of <!-- --> (which uses - (en dash)), you are using an – (em dash) at the closing tag. --Glaisher [talk] 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Glaisher, I warn vandals with an old fashion way of style instead of using Twinkle; if one uses Twinkle improperly, they may end up blocked, and I can't afford that. That really means either using Vandal Warner or typing warning notice by hand. When using Twinkle, editors should be careful due to fact improper use may get one blocked. Angela Maureen (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
So you use Vandal Warner? --Glaisher [talk] 17:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes. Other times, however, usually I hand write the warning for vandalism and declare they stop. Using Twinkle is too complicated for me, also I fear getting blocked for improper use of that. Angela Maureen (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Be careful not to change the meaning when you bring enwiki articles here

In a couple of your recent articles, you changed the meaning when you brought them from enwiki.

In Aura Dione, you said that Dione is a "a Danish, French and Spanish musician and recording artist". The enwiki calls her a "Danish recording artist of Faroese, Spanish, French and Danish origin". That says three things:

  • She is Danish.
  • She is a recording artist.
  • She has ancestors who were Faroese, Spanish, French and/or Danish.

Being of French or Spanish origin does not make her French or Spanish, as you called her. It means that she had ancestors who were French or Spanish.

In True (song), you said that the song "hit #1 across many charts". The enwiki article mentions only four #1 positions: the UK singles chart, Adult Contemporary, Canadian Top Singles, and Irish Singles Chart. That's not very many compared with the number of charts we have information for. You also referred to "Adult Contemporary charts" ( with "charts" plural). "Adult Contemporary" is one chart, published by Billboard.

I know I have cautioned before you about changing facts. The only thing I can think of to help you with that is for you to be sure you understand what an article is saying before you try to bring it here from enwiki. If you have trouble understanding the original article, it's probably not an article you should try to bring here. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Auntof6, although, having learning issues, sometimes telling the difference from certain things gets distorted when I try simplifying the enwp articles I create for here. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Then maybe simplifying other articles isn't the best way for you to contribute here. Maybe you could try to write simple articles from scratch. Just be sure to use reliable references as needed. Either that, or you could do as I have suggested in the past and work on articles in your userspace until another editor can check them for you.
I do sympathize with you having learning issues. I just want articles here to be simple, accurate, and of good quality. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If you go back to the articles you created and see how they have subsequently been improved by other editors, that should give you a good idea of how to write better articles. Jim Michael (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lollipop (Candyman)

I have just copy edited and simplified this article that you created. I have the following comments:

  • You said that the song is from an album called Aqua. That is not correct. It is from a group called Aqua, from their album Aquarium. This is another example of you getting some facts wrong.
  • You said the song was "declared as one as the most favorite songs of the group". The enwiki article says it was "said to be one of the group's favorite songs". "Declared" is not only a more complex word than "said", it has a stronger meaning and shouldn't have been substituted here.
  • You wrote that the longest version of the song is "7 minutes and 28 seconds full". That is not correct English: it should be "7 minutes and 28 seconds long".
  • It appears that this article was based on the English Wikipedia article, but you did not give attribution. Please be sure to add attribution to all articles that you bring here from English Wikipedia. That is very important, in fact it is a legal requirement to comply with copyright rules.

This article also had some words that needed to be simplified ("debut" and "declared"), but that is minor compared to the things I listed above. The only reason I haven't yet asked you to start working exclusively in your userspace is that some of the articles you create don't have the more serious issues.

I know you have learning issues, and getting this stuff right is difficult for you. However, you do have to get the accuracy and legal stuff right, especially since you create so many articles here. Can you think of anything that would help you be sure you understand the English Wikipedia articles correctly before bringing them here? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)