User talk:Auntof6

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

House of Natoli

I filled the page, but I have not violated any copyrights. There were copies of the content plagiarism. Where you've seen? Please do what you riprestinare arbitrarily taken away for no reason. The work was not copied from anyone, and is full of sources. thank you. --Prof.John Fox (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prof.John Fox: The page was the same as text at http://everything.explained.today/House_of_Natoli/. That page links to an article at English Wikipedia as its source, but there is no article with that text at English Wikipedia. Since that page says it is published under the GNU Free Documentation License, I can restore it. However, there is an issue with it: the text is not simple enough for this Wikipedia. It would need to be simplified. I will restore it to your userspace so that you can work on simplifying it. The page Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia explains how to simplify text. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the article. It is now at User:Prof.John Fox/House of Natoli. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am the original author of that text: http://everything.explained.today/House_of_Natoli/ reported. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I ask you to restore the page completely. I take full responsibility for declaring that the text is mine alone, obviously with the use of the sources listed in the footnotes. thank you. --Prof.John Fox (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your authorship is not in question. There are two issues. The first is copyright, which I am satisfied is not a problem as I originally thought. The second issue is whether the text is appropriate for this Wikipedia. It is not appropriate for this Wikipedia, because it is not simple enough. It would be fine for English Wikipedia, but articles here on Simple English Wikipedia must be written in simple language, which this is not. I gave you a link to a page that explains how to simplify text. Please look at that and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback by PokestarFan

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at User:PokestarFan/sandbox/List of Ancient Greek Philosphers.
Message added 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you prefer multiple reasons to be specified?

During a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_117#Template_problem, it was suggested that admins would look at QD nominations and apply any applicable criteria, and that it was not necessary to specify every possible criteria when making nominations for QD. Today, I nominated Pikepass for QD, using the A1 criteria (Little or no meaning). The entire text of the article stated "Pikepass is what Oklahoma City Thunder fans use to pay tolls." I believe that this statement has little meaning, thus the use of the A1 criteria. I could also have used A4 (notability) or G2 (test page). It is noteworthy that Pikepass has nothing to do with the interlinked Oklahoma City Thunder other than geographical proximity. Pikepass is one method of prepaying tolls in Oklahoma (and Kansas and parts of Texas). The statement made in the article is not even correct, since undoubtedly some fans of the team don't live or drive in Oklahoma, some use methods other than Pikepass to pay tolls, and some people who use Pikepass might not be fans of this particular NFL team. When I looked at this, it was clear that this could not be fixed by removing the irrelevant clause, since doing so would gut the sentence and leave it with no meaning at all. There are no references and there is not even a claim of notability in this one sentence stub. I took a quick peek at enWiki to see if there was something there that an article could be modeled after; all I found was a redirect to a larger article about Turnpikes of Oklahoma. I could have written something about what Pikepass is, without the reference to an NFL team, but this would have left it as little more than a dictionary definition -- something that you have stated doesn't belong here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question in your heading, I have no preference about how many QD reasons are specified. If you specify more than one, then if an admin looks at it and thinks one doesn't apply, then he/she can use one of the others. We often don't use the specified reason anyway.

To me, this article was borderline, so I decided to decline the QD. I'd have no objection to your taking it to RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

removing certain years from song articles

You removed certain year categories from many song articles. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at Simple talk about categorizing songs vs. singles. We don't currently have categories for singles, but singles can have many dates because they can be released as singles by more than one artist. A song, on the other hand, has only one date: the date that it was written, or first published, recorded, released or performed (whichever we have the earliest date for). Since our categories are for songs, not singles, we only need the earliest date, so I am removing the later dates. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

category change

A few months ago you removed a category from 13th century, which an IP has just restored. As categories are not my strong suit, I'll leave this to you to determine if the article should now be in that category or if the IP should be reversed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I took it back off. On enwiki, they do put both the article and the eponymous category in the parent category, but we don't do that here. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing archives

I'm simply trying not to leave a bad link there. If you don't care about that, then I won't do it again. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Archives of any kind should not be edited, except to archive more info. It's understood that things on archive pages can become out of date. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. System messages I've seen in some places (here and at enwiki) imply that fixing links after page moves is at minimum allowable, notwithstanding the general rule on not editing archives. But I'll note that the system messages imply that, they don't state it explicitly, so perhaps I am overreading the instructions. In any event, certainly these are your archives, and you're entitled to manage them as you see fit. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the one you changed was my talk page archive, but other archives shouldn't be changed, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, see Help:Archiving a talk page, and particularly the section Advantages of cut and paste. This explicitly says that archives can be edited lightly for clarity. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Marion Lambert COD

Art collector Marion Lambert died from injuries she got after being hit by a bus. I'm struggling on how to word it on her entry at Deaths in May 2016. Any ideas? I need help on this one. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with "road accident"? Maybe "injuries from being hit by a bus"? You do need to disambiguate "Belgian", though, as well as several other nationality words on the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ENwiki question

Is it OK to link to enwiki, like so? Just wanna make sure. (This isn't a syntax question, I meant, is that a good idea). Krett12 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to see that. Eventually, at least in theory, there would be an article here on the subject, and we'd want the link to be to that article. If we link to the enwiki article and the article gets created here later, we aren't likely to find all the enwiki links to change them. Also, if we have enwiki links instead of red links, we can't see that we need the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)