Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 118

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible edit filter

From time to time, well-meaning new editors create articles within the Draft namespace, which we don't use here. Is there a simple way to create an edit filter that blocks all of these, preferably with a non-bitey message that explains that we don't use this namespace? If there is, would this be something that the community would want to use? Etamni | ✉   05:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! In fact, we don't even need the abuse filter. The below entry in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist will work fine:
 Draft:.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-draft>
Here's what the error message could look like: User:Chenzw/Sandbox/Titleblacklist-draft. It looks a bit wonky due to the use of {{FULLPAGENAME}}, but will work as intended otherwise. Chenzw  Talk  15:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks perfect. The wording of the message might need to be slightly simpler, but the solution appears to be exactly what I was suggesting. If there are any other namespaces we don't use, they should probably get the same treatment. Etamni | ✉   14:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to making this change? Etamni | ✉   15:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: since nobody seems to object, I'd say go ahead and boldly change it. Etamni | ✉   03:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have implemented this in Special:Diff/5477402. Chenzw  Talk  04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English as a language in its own right

Does anyone actually speak or write Simple English as its own language, as opposed to using it temporarily as a way to learn normal English? I mean using it consistently and understanding the grammar, and being able to write in Simple English without mistakes. I know lots of people communicate in English without being totally fluent, using limited vocabulary and grammar, but they would make some mistakes so I don't see that as Simple English. (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that Simple English, or Basic English is a recognized language, but it's purpose is as a stepping stone to a fuller understanding of the English language. I'm sure others here can provide more technical answers, but you may find the articles "Basic English" and "Simple English Wikipedia" to be helpful in understanding the purpose of the language and this wiki. Etamni | ✉   01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basic English is English with a severely simplified word list (vocabulary). It was a formal project by Charles Ogden (C.K. Ogden) in the 1920s, who organised a number of books written in Basic English. He foresaw that people round the world would choose English as a common tongue, and thought they could use his version. Simple English wikipedia has developed differently, though at its start Basic English was supposed to be used. The most obvious difference is that Simple vocabulary is more extensive than Basic English, and its concentration is more on writing English clearly and simply. Because anyone can edit, in practice standards of writing are variable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either Basic English or Simple English is actually a "recognized language". We treat it as a separate language for purposes of this wiki, but that's just for convenience, to let us explain how things work here. Our article on Basic English says that it's a constructed langusge, but it's actually a controlled language. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aunt and Mac. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something just occured to me a few weeks later-- we don't really all agree on this. For example, on the front page, it says that simple does not mean short, but several admins have told me that simple *does* mean short. I feel like this should be cleared up and put onto *one* page that everyone can agree to. I don't really care what it is *too* much as long as it doesn't change very often. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you're talking about. Simple English uses shorter sentences, but articles do not have to be short. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me that, but the problem is that everyone has a different idea of what it is. I think different admin (wasn't you) told me that the articles are short, or that people don't want very much information. I personally agree with you on articles not having to be short, though. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's quite one fixed idea, truthfully. Some here—Auntof6 included, I think—don't fully agree with this, but my perspective, expressed elsewhere, is as follows:
  • Definitely shorter, simpler sentences. Not necessarily shorter articles. (Everyone agrees this far.)
  • To make an analogy with printed encyclopedias, I see enwiki as (at least potentially) being able to be an online Encyclopaedia Britannica. I see simplewiki's target for content as being more akin to the en:World Book Encyclopedia. There is room for both in the Wikimedia world.
  • The information should be complete, but on many subjects, I'm not sure the level of detail needs to be quite the same.
  • I think that our target content should be such that a non-expert reader can have a complete picture of a subject. I don't think we need some of the really rigorous detail included in some enwiki articles. I will not say that it is impossible to provide a high level of detail in Simple English. But it is often awkward to do so. I'm inclined to think that once an article gets to a certain level of detail, either the user either speaks English well enough to use enwiki or s/he is going to switch to a different language wiki where s/he understands the language better.

Need help regarding semi protected link


I am a new user to the wikipedia.. Recently i am migrated to autoconfirmed user through software by meeting the requirement.

Now i am able to change the semi protected pages if i find any incorrect information .

but i am not able to edit the sources in simple.wikipedia pages

Can i know why this is happening.

Example Link :

Regards Hareesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doppalapudi.hareesh (talkcontribs)

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you can't "edit the sources". Exactly what are you trying to do, and how are you trying to do it? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doppalapudi.hareesh: you are not autoconfirmed yet. Please use the talk page instead if you need to propose any changes, and do remember to sign your comments by typing 4 tildes like this: ~~~~ Chenzw  Talk  11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

We have Template:British monarchs and Template:United Kingdom monarchs. They don't quite match up so I think they are meant to cover different things?

We also have Template:English monarchs and Template:Scottish monarchs which makes sense. Wondering if the 4 could all be replaced with the one from en at Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs? The dates make it easier to understand and I think would help with navigation. Alternatively I could just put dates in the box header. Thanks for the help! --Tbennert (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They show two different things, one are the monarchs of Britain, and one are the monarchs of the UK. In a number of cases the monarchs are both so they look similar. But there isn't any reason you couldn't make that other one here and redirect the others....other than you really shouldn't use such a big template when smaller ones would do. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I thought they were different. I think what was confusing me yesterday is that the link for United Kingdom monarchs on the header redirects to British monarchs. The British monarchs page matches the British monarchs template but of course not the United Kingdom template. --Tbennert (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If any of these get redirected, please make the appropriate changes in Wikidata. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grants to improve your project

Please help translate to your language:

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons 4.0

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a proposed move from CC BY-SA 3.0 to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license across all Wikimedia projects. The consultation will run from October 5 to November 8, and we hope to receive a wide range of viewpoints and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki.

Apologies that this message is only in English. This message can be read and translated in more languages here. Joe Sutherland (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert space article needs work

Does anyone think Hilbert space is actually written in simple, easy to understand English? Is there a template I can use to nominate it for further simplification? (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: {{complex}}.
By the way, how is "change source" simpler than "edit"? Shouldn't that be "change text"? (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, of course, that the article Hilbert space is not written using just Simple English terms. When we write articles on scientific and mathematical concepts, it is often necessary to link non-simple terms to articles about those terms, or to dictionary entries for them. In this way, the non-simple terms can, themselves, be explained without resorting to adding a lot of text that isn't directly about the subject. Hilbert space contains many such links, although some of them remain as red links because the related articles haven't been written yet. As to your other point, the word "edit" can be considered to be somewhat ambiguous, but I have also wondered why it says "change source" instead of "change text" or "change wording" or something similar. Etamni | ✉   11:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of declined unblock requests

I don't understand why declined unblock requests cannot be removed from the user talk page. They are still visible in the page history, and especially if there are numerous other messages, they can just clog up the page. This can make the page harder to edit/load efficiently, mainly when editing from mobile devices or mobile web browser. MPD (Talk to me!) 11:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it allows admins to see in an instant what the current situation with an account is. It makes it easy to see if a user just had a request declined. If they are abusing their request etc etc. All active block/ban/unblock notices are required to stay on talk pages as long as the block/ban is in effect. If a user is currently blocked/banned unblock notices won't clog the page up as there shouldn't be any new activity other than unblock requests on the talk page anyway since they are blocked/banned. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titles in simple English

Hello. This is a list of some articles in en Wikipedia. If we had articles about them in simple Wikipedia are the titles would be the same?

Xaris333 (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally titles stay the same. There are the odd occurrence where we change them. But we need to follow WP:COMMONNAME in order to be simple and not confusing. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the title is the official name of something, like these are, the title is almost always the same. You didn't mention if you're thinking of creating these, or if you want to read them. If you want someone else to create them, you could add them to Wikipedia:Requested pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T:TDYK's holding area

Back then when there was high activity on T:TDYK, the holding area was set up so that hooks marked as good to go ({{DYKyes}}) can be moved there, and not be counted towards an editor's hook nomination limit (since abolished). However, I think the holding area concept has outlived its usefulness, and makes the process more troublesome because it is now essentially doubling the number of DYK queues. What does the community think about this? Chenzw  Talk  17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable. New arrivals here might like to know the history of the hook limit, so here goes. Once, a number of editors contributed one or two hooks when needed. Then an especially energetic editor put up many proposals in quick succession, which made it difficult for others to feel they were doing anything useful. Several regular editors stopped contributing. The hook limit was to prevent one person swamping the system but, even so, some editors have never come back to this feature. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think we could even have just one queue, given the extremely low level of activity. We should have a banner of something so that once a user has a created a new page, they see a banner advertising DYK. Jcc (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #3—2016

17:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Most wanted categories

There are some maintenance categories listed in Special:WantedPages. The "what links here" just has other categories and no articles. Category:Articles lacking sources from May 2011‏‎ is an example. Does anyone know how to remove these from the list?

User:Auntof6 mentioned the summary template (Template:Articles lacking sources progress for instance). Perhaps this could be the reason? Thanks for the help! --Tbennert (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:WantedPages is broken and has been for nearly a decade. It does get "updated" now and then but not accurately. Its generally not a useful page to use on this wiki for a large number of reasons. The biggest being that because of our size and importing templates the list doesn't actually reflect what is most wanted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That being said I was going to start updating the template that is causing the problem but ran out of time right now so I will try to get to it tomorrow. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your willingness to work on the template. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (November 2016)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:


Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Password reset

I apologise that this message is in English. ⧼Centralnotice-shared-help-translate⧽

We are having a problem with attackers taking over wiki accounts with privileged user rights (for example, admins, bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers). It appears that this may be because of weak or reused passwords.

Community members are working along with members of multiple teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to address this issue.

In the meantime, we ask that everyone takes a look at the passwords they have chosen for their wiki accounts. If you know that you've chosen a weak password, or if you've chosen a password that you are using somewhere else, please change those passwords.

Select strong passwords – eight or more characters long, and containing letters, numbers, and punctuation. Joe Sutherland (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know where to find it, a link to change your password is in your preferences ("My settings"), on the user profile tab, in the basic settings section.
While on the subject of passwords, is there a procedure to reset a forgotten password? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you have an email on your account you can just click the forgotten password link. If you don't have an email on your account then you are out of luck unless you can convince a Steward or Dev I think. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies - that first line should read "Help with translations!". Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These passwords are not the safest (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I'm not an admin I guess I will just be unsecure then. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

It looks like there are hooks ready in queue at Template talk:Did you know. I can work on some of the maybe's to see if they can be moved to okay. Can someone who knows what's going on with the page take a look? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney movie vandal

The Disney movie vandal is back. Be very suspicious of any changes to articles about children's movies. Report any vandalism or suspicious edits to Vandalism in progress straight away. This vandal will be reverted and blocked on sight.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sort of inactive, can someone fill me in on what the Disney movie vandal is (besides the fact that they vandalize disney movies :P) Computer Fizz (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: Now and then someone changes movie articles to add incorrect information. The changes are often to names in the credits, release dates, etc. It happens a lot with various children's movies, not sure if it's just Disney movies. If you see this kind of change, revert it on sight and report it right away, even if the user hasn't had the usual progression of warnings. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds like you are taking this pretty seriously. I'll start signing on more often to make sure that it is taken care of. EDIT : Oh man, one of these happened just 20 minutes ago! Computer Fizz (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the talk page for Wikipedia:Sandbox also a sandbox?

Back on EnWiki, the talk page for the Sandbox is also a sandbox. Is it that way on Simple English Wikipedia too? If not, then I wonder why not. Thanks. -- (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not officially, but I think nobody would mind. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help test offline Wikipedia

Hello! The Reading team at the Foundation is looking to support readers who want to take articles offline to read and share later on their phones - a use case we learned about from deep research earlier this year. We’ve built a few prototypes and are looking for people who would be interested in testing them. If you’d like to learn more and give us feedback, check out the page on Meta! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QD notice

Can someone please let me know what template to use when notifying a user of a QD request? Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's {{QD-notice}}. If you use Twinkle to request the QD, it should take care of that for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use Twinkle because I only do a bit of vandalism stuff. The template you linked is for telling the user the page was deleted, not that it's been requested to be deleted. Thanks though! --Tbennert (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That template is used to tell someone a page has been nominated. It detects whether the page still exists and shows different text if it has already been deleted ("has been selected for quick deletion" vs. "has been quickly deleted"). --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, got it. I saw that a while ago but just read the top part - and I don't think I would have known it changed. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How simple should Simple Wikipedia be?

Should we all use Simple Writer? (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting site, and a good place to start working out what is simple and what is not.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like it's a good idea, but I'm not sure how I feel about using xkcd :P I will look into converting it into a MediaWiki extension. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Simple Wikipedia should have just as much information as the regular English Wikipedia, but with less jargon and simpler sentences. I try to write as if I were explaining something to a twelve year old. For example, instead of saying "mass is a measure of inertia" I would write "mass is what makes objects resist a change in motion" and then follow it up with examples like "it's harder to move a bowling ball than to move a tennis ball because the bowling ball has more mass". is a good resource for writing clearly, and it isn't as extreme as Simple Writer. Notfruit (talk)
Have a look at a discussion we had a couple of years back, which I've preserved on my talk page (User talk:StevenJ81#Simplicity). I'm not so sure that SE Wikipedia needs "just as much information" as the regular English Wikipedia, any more than (to use the example there) World Book Encyclopedia needed "just as much information" as Encyclopædia Brittanica.
If you look at the articles Hebrew calendar, en:Hebrew calendar and fr:Calendrier hébraïque, for example, you will see that the enwiki and frwiki articles have far more in the way of details of calculation and mathematics than the simlewiki article does. (I brought frwiki in just because the article is better organized than enwiki's is.) But the simplewiki article is quite complete for the needs of most readers. I personally think that is what we should aim for. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quantity is an issue if the reader's language skills are borderline. There is a great deal more to simple writing than meets the eye. On my talk page under 'Syntactic Structures', I suggested that the writer needs to make a connection with the reader's mind. Advice on writing often suggests that a writer should start off with something the reader already knows, and lead the reader to what he probably doesn't know. That's not to say that vocabulary and syntax are unimportant, just that there are other things going on in a successful communication. That's why it may be not enough to replace rare words with more common words, whilst ignoring other issues. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Steven. While users are free to include as much or as little detail as they want when creating articles, our main page says, "Simple does not mean short. Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want basic information. Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, add details, but use basic vocabulary." One of the areas where we need to improve is short articles. Too many articles are brought over from enwiki as stubs, with only the intro from the original article. That may be better than nothing, but we shouldn't settle for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know Auntof6 disagrees with me, but we're actually not that far apart. I think that if a user would like to write an article that is Britannica-worthy in content, but is written in Simple English, I would be very happy to see it. And I certainly don't like things to be left as stubs. But I also think that articles need not always be Britannica-worthy to be useful here. There is frequently a useful middle ground between "basic information" and "absolutely everything". StevenJ81 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Outlook x Outlook Express

Hello. More than 1 week ago, I created a topic on Talk:Microsoft Outlook Express. There, I pointed that there is an error on that article. Could someone please check there? Thanks.-- (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This is a smaller community, and unless someone is actively following the page, we might not see a notice on the talk page. So it's never a bad idea to let us know on this page, as you did today. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint. -- (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western Europe

Could some other editors look at this page? We have had a bit of an edit war on whether the list should be restricted to the narrowly defined En version or not. The whole thing needs a bit of a rethink. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted three edits back to your last version. But the truth is that there are a couple of different ways to look at the question. I suggest we discuss this at the appropriate talk page, and maybe semiprotect the page in the meantime. (This is to slow down edit wars, not because the IP's position is inherently wrong.) StevenJ81 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before bringing this here, it would have been good to try talking with the IP editor. As for the discussion, the article's talk page would be the best place for it. In the meantime, if the IP editor makes the changes again, it's not necessary to keep reverting them while there's a discussion going on. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating biographical articles with information about new positions, offices, etc.

When a person has been elected to, nominated for, or picked for a position, please do not update the infobox with that information until the person actually takes office, begins the job, etc. I've seen several articles about Donald Trump and his cabinet nominees being updated ahead of time. Trump is not president yet, so he does not get an officeholder infobox (President-elect is not an office). His choices for cabinet and other positions aren't even really nominees yet: they can't be officially nominated until Trump is sworn in as President. If they do get nominated, the nominations are very likely to be contested, so some of those people may not even take office.

It's OK to say in the articles that Trump is President-elect, but that is not an office. It's OK to say that someone is Trump's choice for a position, but those people are not yet nominees, and they are not yet office holders (unless they have already held some other office).

This applies to elected and nominated people in other countries, too. It's just that I'm seeing this more with the US people right now. Please wait until things are official before updating the infoboxes. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New way to edit wikitext

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) --19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing multiple articles

Is there any place I can go to round up a few people and get them to help me editing Kanye West-related articles? I'm trying to fix them all at once but it's quite a task. Wackslas (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is the best place. It might help if you said what kind of help you want. Some people might not want to edit content, but might be willing to help with other things like categorizing, adding infoboxes, copy editing, checking for simplicity, etc. Do you have a list of articles in mind? If there are new ones you want to create based on articles in English Wikipedia, an admin could import them to your userspace, where you could work on simplifying them before putting them in mainspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of taking away all the red links on all of the album articles but I've now learned that they need to stay there in order to encourage people to create those pages. Now I'd say I need assistance in adding more information to the pages while making sure they don't get too complex. Wackslas (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on a discussion about making articles simple

Everyone is invited to comment on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English pages#An ongoing argument. The topics being discussed are different views of how to and how not to make language simple in our articles, and how detailed articles should be. Please read the existing discussion, and comment if you would like to. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating articles after a person dies

When editing articles about people who have died, please be sure to update verb tenses throughout the article. Here are some examples of things that need to be updated, with verb tenses noted in parentheses.

When alive After death
John Doe is an actor.
(simple present)
John Doe was an actor.
(simple past)
He has three children
(simple present)
He had three children
(simple past)
He has starred in many movies.
(present perfect)
He starred in many movies.
(simple past)
He has been married since...
(present perfect)
He had been married since...
(past perfect)

In addition to fixing the verb tenses, it's a good idea to check any of the affected sentences that mention a time period. For example, a sentence about how long a person has been doing something (for example, living in a particular place), had something (for example, a disease), or been in a certain condition (for example, in a coma) might have been out of date even before the person died.

I won't go into more detail here unless requested. @TDKR Chicago 101, Cloverboy19, and Rus793: - pinging people who worked on some articles about people who recently died.

Thanks, and feel free to ask any questions you have about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently vandalized pages

I have some pages on my watchlist because they get vandalized a lot. I'm sure some of the rest of you do, too. Is anyone interested in sharing these so that more people can keep an eye on them? We could keep a list somewhere so that anyone could copy and paste it into their watchlist. Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the watchlist is kind of unusable because every time you edit a page, it puts it on the watchlist. That said, something like a central watch list might be good because I could write some javascript to bold it or something. For now though, it could be hosted in my userspace and would be extended confirmed protected. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... we don't have extended confirmed here ... StevenJ81 (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. In that case, maybe semi protected is good enough. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... that's pretty much the purpose of the watchlist. Did you know that you can suppress your own edits from your watchlist display? I find it extremely useful, and not only for articles. That new feature that lets you see when something is added to or removed from a category has lots of uses. In any case, I didn't mean that you'd see only vandalism. If you aren't interested in watching more pages, no problem. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in helping out, if you still need people. Lithorien TalkChanges 00:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you know of some pages that are often vandalized, whether they're in your watchlist or not, make a list of them in your userspace and let people know where it is. I'll do the same. If enough people are interested, we can put the info in some central place. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given ChenzwBot's relative high detection rate nowadays, I think this list is also a good source of data. Chenzw  Talk  01:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Football team

Hello. Sorry for writing in English. Is the article Football team in the correct wikidata item? Please check d:Q15944511 and d:Q476028. Xaris333 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaris333: Please do write in English here! The article looks to me like it's in the correct Wikidata item. There's a slight difference between a club and a team. Do you think it should be different? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I ask to others Wikipedia too. I think there is a mess with some links and I am trying to correct them. Xaris333 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New California law affects birth dates in IMDB

You might be interested in a new California law, AB 1687, that prohibits some websites from publishing information about people's ages. That includes not only stating the age, but mentioning a birth date. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to apply to Wikipedia, but it apparently does apply to IMDB, a source we sometimes use. If you see any articles that use IMDB as a source about someone's age, you might want to replace that reference. Even if IMDB does still have the information, IMDB is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, so it would be good to replace these references anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would only apply to them because their servers are likely located in California which isn't the case of Wikipedia so it doesn't affect us at all. But yes, always good to look for other sources anyway. There is however, no reason we have to remove links to IMDB. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true in general. However, if IMDB removes birth dates and we're using IMDB as a reference for birth dates, those references would no longer support the birth date information and should be replaced. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. But I don't forsee many being removed. They only have to remove them if the subject asks them to. I can't see that happening too often, atleast for imdb. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Quick Deletion Log

How do I set up a Twinkle Quick Deletion Log? Thanks, MiloDenn (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Scroll down to the "Quick deletion (QD)" section. Check the box for "Keep a log in userspace of all QD nominations", and type a page name in the text box labelled "Keep the QD userspace log at this user subpage:". I don't use this feature, so I don't know the correct format for the page name. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Deletions

How can I delete bad pages on Wikipedia? Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the deletion policy. How to remove Wikipedia pages? Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't. You can mark pages to suggest deletion (as described in the policy). Only administrators can delete pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Pages

I have made several new pages recently, yet they don't come up as options in the drop down menu when I search for them. If I press enter they then appear, and I was wondering whether it was because they had accents in. These are the pages: Allgäu Alps and Großer Krottenkopf. Thanks, MiloDenn (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What dropdown menu are you referring to? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you search for something it gives you a list of pages that it thinks your asking for. MiloDenn (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried it and it appeared on my drop down menu. I think it just takes a while to appear it. --Druddigon (talk | contributions) 17:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEW Discord

I find that users are rarely on IRC, and so I would like (if it's okay with everyone else) to switch to Discord so that people can see what messages have been written and also allows room for more expansion. Or maybe if people still want to use IRC, there could be both. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: @Chenzw: @Macdonald-ross: Pinging most active admins as I have been having this issue for a while. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the issue. Is Discord another chat facility? What makes you think that more people would participate in that? And are you proposing that discussions there be published so that people can see them besides the participants? How would you ensure that participants approved of publishing their conversations each time? Keep in mind that any conversations on IRC are unofficial and not intended for publication. The same would be true of any other off-wiki discussions. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Short explanation: Discord is better than IRC.
Long explanation: You don't need to "publish" them, they just stay there. And yes, I do think that everyone should be able to read the chat as Wikipedia is open and IRC could be used to have secret discussions (now I'm not saying we need to stop that, just saying that if it's *official* then people should be able to read it. That's what Wikipedia *is* -- being open for everyone to read is one of the raw principles that Wikipedia was founded on. So I am thinking that we should try it out and if everyone is okay with it, we can continue to use it. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would not support this idea. Wikipedia is open, but IRC is not Wikipedia. Having the chat is the same as having a meetup: discussions happen there that are not recorded and are not official. If anything is discussed off-wiki that affects on-wiki stuff, that discussion needs to be repeated on-wiki so that 1) everyone can see it and 2) it is on record the same as on-wiki discussions. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was just about it being recorded. My main problem is that people are hardly ever online and that way people can have a conversation without all being online at the same time. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can do that on talk pages on-wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think I would check discord very often either. Anyone can join the link if they want, but I withdraw my opinion on any of this. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with simplewiki IRC is not the interface itself. People are fine with using freenode. I don't think discord would attract more users. eurodyne (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have the editor numbers for an adequate presence on Discord - our IRC channel is dead enough. No point splitting off from freenode, where there is already a significant WMF presence, as well as the various helper bots. Chenzw  Talk  09:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On wiki topics are not supposed to be discussed on IRC anyway. So if you want to discuss stuff that affects the wiki it must be done on the wiki. IRC is only for off-topic chatter so people can use it or not use it, it doesn't affect anything on here as it is basically unofficial. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone to look at this

I just deleted several articles created by a user. The same user also created a couple of modules: Module:Hatnote list and Module:See also. I'm not as up to speed as I could be on modules, so could someone more knowledgeable in them take a look to see if these are needed? Keep in mind that the mere fact that they show up as used doesn't necessarily mean that they are needed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least for now, relying on modules introduces complications to our small community, as not many of us (if at all) can troubleshoot Lua-related issues effectively. {{See also}} appears to have worked fine in the old (module-less) way, so I don't see any pressing need to migrate it to use a module instead. Chenzw  Talk  08:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky problem, because in some cases, modules can do things otherwise not available. (Think of the greater flexibility available in using Wikidata through modules than through {{#property:...}}.) I may well bring over a module being used to run {{Bibleverse}} because the tool the current template relies on isn't being maintained, while the module is. But perhaps the way to go here is that any module that we use here (perhaps other than Wikidata modules) (a) is here only because the current, non-module version doesn't work, and (b) needs to have a contact person on the documentation that will commit to running and maintaining it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: When I bring templates to other wikis I work on, like Ladino Wikipedia and Incubator, I still rely a great deal on Simple English Wikipedia, because it still has very viable non-module templates. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Twinkle is currently down at the moment. It is taking a long time to make Rfd nominations. Is there anything which could help this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

I tried to request a move over a redirect at Talk:Sharia_law, but it looks like the template doesn't work here. The reason for requesting a move to Sharia was: Per WP:COMMONNAME, as the standard term used by the bulk of RSs on the subject. The redundant form "Sharia law" is mostly used by polemicists, and this title has a side effect of showing up first in search results and diverting about a quarter of likely unsuspecting users from the far better developed en-wiki article. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category rename

Category:Languages of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Should be Category:Languages of Azad Kashmir per the main article and category. —Justin (koavf)TCM04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

help me

hi. i am new editor and i wanna to improve my english language. i need your help. can you give me some project for practice for improving my ability ? --Dastan47 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dastan47: I want to help you. Do you know Persian? —Justin (koavf)TCM04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: yes. of course my native language is persian. --Dastan47 (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dastan47: A beautiful language with a lot of history. It is also Indo-European so it will be a little similar to English. You also obviously have some understanding of English--can you tell me more about your history with it? —Justin (koavf)TCM06:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: of course, history of iran is wide and big. what kind of era do you want to know, hence i answer your question ? because i didn't know history of middle east very well. --Dastan47 (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dastan47: Tell me your history with English. (تاریخ خود را با زبان انگلیسی) —Justin (koavf)TCM06:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research Project

Hi I am a high school English teacher in Virginia. This semester I have an advanced 11th grade American Literature class. For a research project, I would to like to divide them into four groups and have each group do a page on a person or topic (researching, writing, and documenting the information). I thought something like this may be more interesting than the usual research paper. Can this be done and if so, who do I need to communicate with and how? If it can be done, is there a template they can use for formatting and proper research? The template would also serve as s grading rubric. Thank you for help you can render my class.

C. F. Jennings, George Washington High School, Danville Virginia --BeachDiva60 (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeachDiva60: Hello, and welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. First, please be sure you have read Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide. That will give you some basic information about school projects on this wiki. I would say that the main thing to keep in mind is that any work done here should eventually be useable to improve Simple English Wikipedia. That means that you and your students should be familiar with basic requirements for Wikipedia articles. If you or any of your students are familiar with working on others Wikipedias, including the English Wikipedia, it would help to become familiar with the differences here.
It would help us to answer your questions if you tell us more about what you have in mind. In particular, it would help to know:
  • How many students would there be? Would they use registered accounts? If so, would the accounts be for class use only, or would they belong to the students?
  • When do you want to do this project (start and end dates)?
  • Would the students' work be checked before being added to live articles? We don't have a draft namespace like English Wikipedia, so work would have to be done either in user sandboxes or live articles. In the past, students (and teachers) have gotten frustrated when work in live articles was removed because it didn't meet requirements, so it might be best to work in sandboxes at first.
  • Will your class include spending time going over how to work on Wikipedia? If so Wikipedia:Student tutorial should help with that.
Those are the questions I can think of right now. I wish you luck with your project, and look forward to hearing back from you. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please semi-protect the page Frog as it is prone to vandalism. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was all of 8 edits good or bad all of only happens for articles that are vandalized many times by many edits in one day. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Hi, I'm new here and I just need someone to help me out. Thanks! 9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9[reply]

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. For us to help you, you need to be more specific about what kind of help you need. It might be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, which explains how to write for this Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to help you with anything you need. Just ask MiloDenn (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content Translation

Does content translation work on here MiloDenn (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you mean by "work". It has been used here, but it usually produces output that isn't simple enough for this wiki. If it's used to translate from a non-English Wikipedia, it probably won't even be good English, let alone simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People nominated for United States Cabinet positions

I'm seeing articles on these people where the infoboxes are being updated to show that they are either in office or that their being in office is pending. Please wait to update infoboxes until each person's nomination is confirmed (preferably with a reference). Their nomination can be mentioned in the body of the article, but infoboxes should not be changed until the person is actually serving in the office. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that's how they're being edited on the English Wikipedia. They have a pending/TBD designation in the infobox. Only (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had seen that. I don't think it should be done thst way there, either, but I'm not active there these days so I'm leaving those alone. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance - Special:UnusedFiles

Special:UnusedFiles lists 13 files, that is 52% of all local files, the highest value for any Wikipedia if not counting Wiki.png. Most Wikipedias routinely delete files if they appear at this special page. A copy of each file exists at commons:Category:Spoken Wikipedia. (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases the text has been substantially rewritten since the recording. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross, all files have a recording date and are stored in the central repository "Wikimedia Commons", in the category "Spoken Wikipedia", see commons:Category:Spoken Wikipedia. Unused and duplicated files are routinely deleted in other Wikipedias. (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's already been said. My point is that listeners who are unable to read the text might get an outdated and possibly incorrect version of the page. We have not found it possible to do new recordings because of the few editors that work on page content here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross, working on page content and doing recordings are different task. Recordings can be made by people that don't edit Simple Wikipedia. commons:Category:Spoken Wikipedia is a larger category. Maybe people would be more inclined to add new files, if they would better understand the structure. 1) commons:Category:Spoken Wikipedia - Simple English has no consistent way of naming, recommended for Spoken Wikipedia is a prefix followed by the article title. 2) Files are partially duplicated in Simple Wikipedia. Which brings one back to the initial observation, that admins do not perform deletions in Simple Wikipedia that are routine deletions in other Wikipedias. What can be done to fix 1+2? I think, keeping it simple, deleting the unused files is one step forward. Renaming in Commons should be done too. (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that we are not performing those tasks, its that we actually mark our recordings to not be copied to commons on the file pages with a template. Per local consensus we prefer to keep our spoken articles stored on this wiki as they do not pertain to other wikis and thus don't need to be stored on commons. (Admittedly we can't stop them from being copied because of cca licensing but we can overide commons versions with ours) So how commons names them is of little concern as those aren't the versions that will be used here. It does appear unfortunately that a bot ran through our wiki transferring all our files last month which is probably why you are here now. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh those shouldn't have been removed from the articles. Even if the text of the article changes the box makes it clear that the recording is of an earlier version. Will have to readd those, didn't notice someone had removed them. The VGA stub ones etc can be deleted though because those pages no longer exist. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: Although it's unfortunate that users may hear outdated versions of articles, surely that is better than nothing, correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM16:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance - VGA stub.ogg

User:Djsasso wrote "The VGA stub ones etc can be deleted though because those pages no longer exist" [8]

At Special:ListFiles there are nine "VGA stub.ogg", following is a list of these ordered by article title:

  1. File:Simple en American Airlines Flight 11 VGA stub.ogg
  2. File:Simple en Ana Ivanović VGA stub.ogg
  3. File:Simple en Geisha VGA stub.ogg
  4. File:Simple en Gothic Architecture VGA stub.ogg
  5. File:Simple en Hanami VGA stub.ogg
  6. File:Simple en Jimi Hendrix VGA stub.ogg
  7. File:Simple en Kamikaze VGA stub.ogg
  8. File:Simple-en-Saturn (planet) VGA stub.ogg
  9. File:Simple en Violin VGA stub.ogg (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017-01-28 UnusedFiles

Thanks to Djsasso who has re-added some files to articles, as of 2017-01-28 Special:UnusedFiles lists nine files, they are:

Djsasso, could these files be deleted, so that Special:UnusedFiles is empty? (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming template

I want to rename the Template:Namur into Template:Namur (province) but this is not possible. Can anyone help to fix this? Wwikix (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What's wrong with having it as Namur? Only (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In line with Template:Liège (province) and Template:Antwerp (province) (there exits a Namur (province) and a Namur (city)). Wwikix (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Wwikix for finding this! Maybe moving is not possible for non-admins, because Wwikix created a page at the move target. Can an admin just do it? Maybe User:Auntof6? (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I deleted the original so that there would be no confusion between the province and the municipality. I see that the articles were already updated. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6 - Thanks a lot! (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nocat on German Info box template

I am currently working on creating pages for municipalities in Bavaria, and on each page (e.g. Dietmannsried) I have been using this template: Template:Infobox German location. I created a category for municipalities in a district of Bavaria here: Category:Municipalities of Oberallgäu, in the Category:Municipalities in Bavaria. However, if you look at the categories it has also been added to Category:Settlements in Bavaria, of which Category:Municipalities in Bavaria is a sub category. Therefore it is over categorized. Auntof6 and I believe that the Template:Infobox German location is adding this category, and therefore it would be useful to have a nocat function on that template. However neither of us are sure how to do it, and therefore I am looking for some one with a fair amount of experience with templates to do it. Thanks very much, and if you have any ideas, or are happy to do it, please let me know below. Thanks for your help, MiloDenn (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MiloDenn, Auntof6: I would do it like this. Does that help? (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it would help, as we don't want to remove the automatic categorization entirely, but instead we just want to make it possible to disable it. Thanks though, MiloDenn (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is disabled, then what is the code useful for. The code is still in the history, one can disable it at any time. (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Milo wants is to be able to tell the template not to categorize on a case-by-case basis. The _noautocat parameter will do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That does not help, and please don't make test changes to active pages. With templates, if you want to make a test change, you can use the template's sandbox. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"That does not help" - Why? And, it wasn't a test change, it was a demonstration, that I wanted to revert immediately. (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you call it, please don't do it in active templates. The change you made didn't help because it removed the categorization code instead of giving a way to suppress categorizing selectively. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "nocat function"? There is already a "_noautocat" parameter. (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much I want to stop it adding the category settlements in Bavaria to pages such as Dietmannsried. If you think that the parameter you found could do that, please explain how. Thanks very much, MiloDenn (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is designed to call Template:Infobox settlement which states it is an infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, for which Template:Infobox country should be used. One needs to be designed that does not call, I believe, it it is that annoying. I know nothing of unwrapping one and that is how it is on English WIkipedia: [9], where this one is linked to (and I assume, use the offending parameters to hopelessly tie into the call). I notice there are otherly designed templates for Template:Infobox Australian place that can utilise 'city' 'suburb' and so forth. However, if a 'settlement' is considered anything smaller than a country by definition, we may have more offending geography infoboxes here. Fylbecatulous talk 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They settlements categories are the simple english way of stating en:Category:Populated places in Bavaria. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The _noautocat parameter will do what you want. Add a parameter of "_autocat=x to the infobox. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for noticing that. I didn't notice it because I was only looking for the parameter "nocat" that many other templates use. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much to everyone for there help, it has now been sorted out. Thanks, MiloDenn (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is it OK to reproduce the same exact words from the source, if we cite the source or is it considered plagiarism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohanprashanth (talkcontribs)

@Mohanprashanth: No. Cite your source and keep the quotation short--that is perfect. —Justin (koavf)TCM07:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: You do not need to shorten it, but you do need to make sure that the language is simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanprashanth: It depends. If the source is under an appropriate license and the language is simple enough, you can use the same words as the source. You also need to say where your text comes from. When it comes from an article in another Wikipedia, you can do that by giving WP:Transwiki attribution. Attribution is different from references. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection preventing me from performing anti-vandalism tasks

Hello. Yesterday (February 3rd, 2017), I reverted some vandalism to the Australia article here. Since doing that, someone has now added a protection status to the article, meaning only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Since I'm not autoconfirmed (and can't find instructions on what I have to do, to become autoconfirmed), I can no longer edit the article as I'm too new here. Could you please tell me what I need to do? Thanks! Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you become autoconfirmed after your account is four days old and you've made at least ten edits. So far you've made four. If you have requests for changes to be made to a protected page until then, you can leave the request on the talk page of the article. Only (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad pages appearing in Google Search results

I have been recently monitoring new pages, and was surprised when I did a search for "Landon Pickett" on Google (to see if the personal is real and notable for an article on Wikipedia, which is false for both cases), the newly created page appeared near the top of the search results with the vandal's text cleanly visible. I did this for several others I tagged for deletion, such as "National predator of Pakistan", and I was shocked to see text from the QD template actually show up on the results page. Google even displays results for recently deleted articles and those tagged for deletion as well, as can be seen via a search for "has asked for quick deletion of this article". Could anyone please explain why this is happening? I think Google's web crawler needs to be more careful when picking out newly created articles on Wikipedia to avoid tricking others into believing all is correct. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally sure, however if it is something on Google's end, I wouldn't think there is much we could do on our end. I think it's more likely these bad/false pages show up simply because there isn't much else out there on those "topics". If somebody creates a wikipedia page with a gibberish title, and then you google that gibberish title, chances are Wikipedia will be the only result you get, until the page is recognized as deleted. Similarly, if you create a page about your random neighbor down the street, the Wikipedia page may be the only thing about them online, so it will show first.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Hi, I'm back after who knows how many months?

Yep, it's me! Also leave some welcome back cookies please. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I was looking at WP:RULES to find out how to notify editors about articles with red links, and I noticed the WikiProjects page is itself a red link. Can someone tell me how to make a small project? I am thinking about the lists at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, only much smaller. There must be people who want to edit something. How do you connect them with topics? Auntof6? Peterdownunder? —Neotarf (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neotarf: WikiProjects here are unofficial. They are managed completely in userspace. Just start a page in your userspace and put whatever you need there. Then you can announce it and give updates at Simple talk. You can put that page in Category:WikiProjects. In fact, you can look at other pages there to see 1) examples of how others have been done and 2) whether there is already a WikiProject for the topic you have in mind. A few note about WikiProjects here:
  • We do not use categories for individual WikiProjects. There is Category:WikiProjects for the project pages and Category:WikiProject user templates for WikiProject userbox templates.
  • We do not use categories for WikiProject participants. Participants can be listed on individual project pages.
  • We do not use WikiProject banners on article talk pages.
Feel free to ask if you have other questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's great, and very...simple. Thanks. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

request for page move

Hallo, could someone please move the page "Innsbruck Medical University" to "Medical University of Innsbruck"? The reason for my request is that that particular school of medicine calls itself "Medical University of Innsbruck" on its own website and that i myself don't have a sufficient number of edits on this Wikipedia in order to be entitled to move articles myself. --K1812 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --K1812 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting Wikipedia moves

  1. English Wikipedia has made the page en:Neural network (NN) into a redirect to en:Artificial neural network (ANN). The page simple:Neural network states in its topic sentence that it considers them synonyms. However, the Wikidata-powered Interlanguage Links on Wikipedia leave the ANN article without a link to Simple.
  • The redirect on En wiki is a mistake, I think. The general term should be a disambig to Artificial neural network and Biological neural network. Here I have moved our Neural network to Artificial neural network on the grounds of its content. And without a redirect, because I expect in good time the general term to be a disambig here also. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The documentation at simple:Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#How_to_rename_a_page needs to be corrected, as users don't have access to Move.
Hobart (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Users do have access to move unless they are brand new. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on categorizing Category:LGBT

There is a discussion at Category talk:LGBT about whether to categorize the LGBT category under Category:Paraphilias. Please give your input. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I see that the simple English Wikipedia is using the Flow extension. However, the Special:EnableFlow page seems to be restricted to Flow bots. Why is this? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I posted this almost two weeks ago and it has gone unanswered ever since. Can someone please respond and give some insight? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Profane language

I've noticed that many anonymous editors not only create inappropriate pages, but they also insert profane language into existing articles, or worse, replace an entire article with this language. I see that there is a private abuse filter targeting such "attacks", but it seems that it either hasn't been working and/or anons have figured out one or more ways to bypass it. I can't view the filter because I'm not an admin, and therefore I can't propose any specific changes to the conditions, but I just wanted thoughts from others on this. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 17:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can (and should) make obscene titles, edits and usernames not visible by the general user. Likewise libelous personal attacks, and anything else they think is extremely damaging to the wiki. In practice the sheer volume of bad new pages and vandalism often gets ahead of its correction. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most swears don't meet the requirements of revdel. The requirement is grossly degrading, your typical swear does not meet that as the standard is "This does not include mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" rudeness, personal attacks or conduct accusations." RevDel is supposed to be used sparingly. Someone on once summed it up pretty well when they said if it can't be Oversighted it can't be RevDeled. Its not 100% true but pretty accurate. I as an oversighter can't OS swears unless they are libel, so they shouldn't be RevDeled either. I understand that some might think swears are purely disruptive and you could definitely make that argument, but I think we have a higher threshold than just the odd swear word as seen by the definition of the purely disruptive reason on the revdel page "This includes grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that attack or threaten some person or thing and are not otherwise useful, but not normal spam links." Once something is reverted it is unlikely ever to be see by anyone again anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Liable? Do you mean libel? Also, thanks for this explanation. It's good for us to be reminded that we have policies/guidelines on this sort of thing other than "it seems like a good thing to do". --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah totally botched that typing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPs creating pages

Why are IPs allowed to create (non-talk) pages here when they can't on Wikipedia? You guys here do realise that probably nine out of every ten IP page creations meet one of the QD criteria? J991 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "on Wikipedia", I assume you mean "on English Wikipedia"? :) You raise a valid question. It's a local decision, I think. We could decide to do the same thing. Maybe the reason we haven't is that we need all the contributors we can get. If you want to try to show that it's a net negative, feel free. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Yes, I did mean the English Wikipedia. The problem I have with IP page creation is that it requires admin attention every time a bad page is created. Anyone can revert if an article is vandalized, but only admins can delete the many bad pages that are routinely created, mainly by unregistered editors. And if there's no admins online, the backlog can pile up. Also, I think we'd have less vandalism/vandals overall if you had to log in to create pages, although it's likely that vandals would attack more existing articles instead. J991 19:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that this is technically possible without WMF intervention due to global CentralAuth, but what if this community could create an independent user group and new userright for "moderator" or "semi-admin" or anything like that? This group and userright could allow members of that group to delete pages solely created by unregistered users. Since most anon pages are vandalism, it could be useful, and it would prevent a backlog without giving too many users full admin rights. As noted above, I don't think it's technically possible because the configuration of all WMF projects are linked globally via CentralAuth, but it's a thought, at least. I would Oppose revoking page creations from anons because I think that they can be constructive when and if they want to be. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 19:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose preventing IP page creations outright, for the reason that Auntof6 noted above.
I'm not sure you can create a right that would only allow people to delete pages created by anons, and almost certainly you can't create a right that would only allow people to delete pages created by anons and never edited by users with accounts. The only way to do something like this, I think, would be to create a page deleter right, limit it severely, and assume the people you give it to will follow a rule that says "only delete if it's an IP-created spam page". And at that, (a) it's only worthwhile if the sysops think they need more help with this, and (b) if you're going to do that, you may as well give those people at least enough latitude to delete pages created by single-purpose/vandalism-only/brand-new accounts, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, two pages created by unregistered users that were valid. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure the first one passes the "simple" test. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a straight unsimplified copy from En wiki minus the sources. The number of clearly good new pages by IPs is about one in fifty. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We made the decision to allow it here because with less than 20 regular contributors we find the good done by IPs outweighs the bad when it comes to page creation. Would definitely be very against restricting it here. We have very different needs than due to size. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that we are in the need of more admins. With so many of them on enwiki, we could find some of them to come here so that there is always an admin on standby to deal with any emergencies. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of "emergencies" do you see us having here on Simple that can't be handled by admins here? It's Wikipedia. I struggle to find any thing that would be an emergency. Only (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few days ago, I was fighting this IP user who kept undoing my edits and restoring the vandalism I removed. I reported the user to VIP at 21:31 UTC but an admin wasn't on to block the user for another 45 minutes, during which the vandal's activity continued to the extent that I even made a report to VIP @ enwiki at 21:45, and within minutes a response came from an admin who said he had no rights to block users on simplewiki. Had he happened to be a global-sysop the vandal would have already been blocked. Clearly a sign that admins are more active on enwiki than simplewiki and we could have some of them on simplewiki as well. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
annoying? Sure. Emergency? Far from it. I mean to refer to reverting as "counter attacks" and sending an "SOS" suggests that maybe you're taking things a little too seriously when addressing vandalism. The phrase we use is "don't feed the troll" and if a vandal knows he's really bothering you, then you're just adding fuel to it. Only (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone always mentions this, there is pretty much never an emergency. And if there ever was one a steward can come and take care of it. If anything we are finally getting back down to a more reasonable amount of admins for the size of our wiki. Still a bit high, but reasonable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And no matter how many admins we have, there will always be times when none of them are around. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have felt like we needed more admins at times. When I first got here, I kinda foolishly nominated myself for admin because I was being frustrated that no admins were online when I needed them. Now it's the other way around as I sign on about once a month.
That said, I think the semi-admin might be a good idea (and yes it is possible) for those people who can be trusted and know what they're doing but aren't quite ready for something like editing MediaWiki pages. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has morphed from what to do about bad IP-created pages to whether we need more admins. If anyone thinks we need more admins, they are free to nominate themself or someone else. I don't think anyone has ever been denied adminship solely because there were already enough admins. Just please check first with your nominee to be sure they're willing to be nominated. Anyone considering being an admin should understand that the admins (and 'crats, too) are bound by Wikipedia policies and guidelines (not all of which are documented on this site): they can't do everything they'd like to do just because they're in those positions. (Take it from me: that can be frustrating!) --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two new WikiProjects

If someone is looking for articles to create, there are two new lists of red links that do not have an article in any language. That means the article you create will probably be on the first page of a google search. They even have userboxes.

This user is a member of WikiProject Courage in Journalism.
This user is a member of the
Wikiproject: Medal of Honor.

The Medal of Honor red link project is the easiest. There are already sources for the articles, and the notability of the recipients has just been confirmed in a recent AFD discussion, so you should not have to deal with notability issues, just make the article. There are also similar articles to look at if you have any question about format.

The Courage in Journalism project is a little more difficult. If you like to make articles about underrepresented groups, this may be for you, since these are all women journalists, and many from unusual places in the world. Everyone on the list has received an award, so they should be notable, but you will have to look for sources. —Neotarf (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neotarf: Good luck with your new WikiProjects. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask that people creating articles for these projects be sure to include appropriate categories. Many of the articles will be biographical; these articles should have categories for:
  • The year the person was born
  • The year the person died (or Category:Living people if the person is still alive)
  • The award itself, if such a category exists
  • The person's nationality, or the specific place they are from
  • Anything else of interest about the person: that could be their profession, other accomplishments, etc.
Note that some of these could be combined, as in Category:American military people, which combines nationality and profession.
In addition to categories, most biographical articles need a DEFAULTSORT. If you're not familiar with that, see Wikipedia:Categories#Sorting of people, or ask me and I'll be glad to explain it. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was not meant so much as a primer for how to write articles but as a resource for people who already know how and are looking for specific knowledge gaps to fill in. But I do think it might be a good place for people with some editing or patrolling skill to bridge into writing articles. I'll take a look and think about it a bit, maybe needs a separate essay about how to write an article, there are specialized cats for the project at the bottom of the page. —Neotarf (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just mentioned it because all articles about people need the kinds of categories I mentioned, and I've been seeing biographical articles created recently without them. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good for this wiki to have something like en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. My main interest on enwiki was MOS and I was quite pleased to participate in creating the Simplified Manual of Style. It was set up as a brief overview for new users, where they could get an overview of the style manual without being overwhelmed, with links to pages they could go to for more information. I thought the quick orientation I got from you here was quite helpful. —Neotarf (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show me both edit tabs

Actually I am seeing both and that's good but in Prefereces,Editing I am not seeing the "edit mode" choice anymore. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Spike of vandalism

There has been a sudden spike of vandalism on the simplewiki since the beginning of this year. Any explanations? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be all that much more than usual, vandalism comes in waves. Sometimes there is more sometimes there is less. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do think amount of QDs today is above average.--HakanIST (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Menachem Begin be categorized as a terrorist or criminal?

User:Wwikix categorized Menachem Begin as a criminal, then later as a terrorist, based on the fact that he was a member of Irgun. I checked enwiki, and there he is categorized as a revolutionary and as a rebel, but not as a terrorist or a criminal. I don't think he should be categorized as either a criminal or terrorist here, either. Please discuss. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he is convicted of something. That's all that should mean is someone is a convict--there shouldn't be any value judgement grey area about whether someone *thinks* a person is a terrorist. It's all about sources and objective, verifiable facts. —Justin (koavf)TCM23:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our article is categorized based only on the fact that he was a member of the organization. It doesn't mention him being convicted of anything. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun was labelled as a terrorist organization. Begin was an active member of Irgun, therefore he has been categorized as a terrorist. Wwikix (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think he should be. But my POV on such things is well known. However, I have a bigger concern... StevenJ81 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a page has references...

This is a reminder: when a page has references, please be sure to include a references section with a {{reflist}} template (or equivalent). If you don't, the references still display, but they're at the very bottom of the page, which isn't necessarily where they should be. We want to be able to control where the references appear, and there needs to be a heading, so please be sure to include these in articles that have references. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] caught in spam filter

Hi, I am unable to add a link to the official website for the news service Syria Direct. The error message says this is because of a spam filter for the site, however it looks like is no longer active. Syria Direct looks to me like a legitimate source, that anyone should be able to use on Wikipedia. Does anyone know how to fix this? —Neotarf (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest way is to find the abuse filter causing it and fix it.
I'm not an admin here and cannot do this myself, but hopefully somebody else can Computer Fizz (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely an edit filter. A spam filter is different. -DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably on the global blacklist as we don't really keep a local blacklist of spam sites. Go take a look at meta:Spam blacklist and request help there. They might be able to help you. -DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I have asked there. Yes, it is global, does the same thing on another wiki. Since this seems to be good place for answers, can anyone tell me 1) how to turn off the extended edit count information for X!'s tools on enwiki? I removed the code they give you but it's still displaying an extended count. 2) autoblocks are being triggered with displaying user names, linking an unsuspecting person's identity in real life with their user name, for instance see this comment. —Neotarf (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hammadsaeed's articles

Hi all...could anyone take a look at articles created by User:Hammadsaeed? I don't have much time to look st them and I'm only on mobile for a while. There seem to be major sourcing issues and notability concerns. One or two seem to have been deleted on the English Wikipedia as well. Thanks, Only (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only sir

All articles are with references you can check,, the articles were deleted because i did'nt give any proper references on English Wiki but on Simple English articles are with References. And there was no issue of notability but there was issue of Sock puppetry on english wiki

[10] and also by BBC urdu [11] and

recently on 13 november 2016 there was A bomb blasted in Shrine of Shah Noorani more than 54 killed.[12] and Shah Noorani was a Tab'in the term tabi'n is for the person who see Muhammad Sahabas [13] and it was reported by Express News[14] User:Hammadsaeed (talk) 08:11,11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hammadsaeed: Please stop putting article content here. Put it in the article instead. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: sorry and i already put in article too.

i just want to clear.. Hammad Bukhari (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed your signature. If you want to change your username, please see Stewards requests/Username change. Also, per this query, Only does not prefer to be described with male words; please do not assume.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Sir, Widr deleted my wiki page named as: I request you to restore my page. Sir It is protected by creating. Sir, If you need more refrences regarding that article. I will provide you a lot. Or contact me at this mail please backup my page. Mukti1 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted on English Wikipedia, not here. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Please ask about this deletion on English Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the extensive deletion log at, in chronological order, that article was deleted on English Wikipedia because (in the opinion of the deleting Administrators): it did not indicate notability prima facie for a person; it was blatantly promotional; it duplicated article en:Mukti Mohan (which is of questionable notability); it was a blatant hoax; and it was created by a banned or blocked user (Mukti Subedi) in violation of ban or block. For those same reasons, article Mukti Subedi is not welcome on either wiki, and neither are you due to your block evasion/abusing multiple accounts.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]