User talk:Auntof6

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Archives Barnstars, etc. 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Contents

WAM Organizers Update

Hi WAM Organizer! Hopefully, everything works just fine so far! Need Help Button, post in any language is fine

• Here are some recent updates and clarification of rules for you, and as always, let me know if you have any idea, thought or question.
  • Additional souvenirs (e.g. postcard) will be sent to Ambassadors and active organizers.
  • A participant's article count is combined on all language Wikipedias they have contributed to
  • Only Wikipedia Asian Month on Wikipedia or Wikivoyage projects count (no WikiQuote, etc.)
  • The global top 3 article count will only be eligible on Wikipedias where the WAM article requirement is at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words.
  • If your community accepts an extension for articles, you should set up a page and allow participants to submit their contributions there.
  • In case of redirection not allowed submitting in Fountain tool, a workaround is to delete it, copy and submit again. Or a submission page can be used too.
  • Please make sure enforce the rules, such as proper references, notability, and length.
  • International organizers will double check the top 3 users' accepted articles, so if your articles are not fulfilling the rules, they might be disqualified. We don't want it happened so please don't let us make such a decision.

Please feel free to contact me and WAM team on meta talk page, send me an email by Email this User or chat with me on facebook. For some languages, the activity for WAM is very less, If you need any help please reach out to us, still, 12 more days left for WAM, Please encourage your community members to take part in it.

If you no longer want to receive the WAM organizer message, you can remove your username at this page.

Best Wishes,
Sailesh Patnaik

around vs in vs at

Recent articles I created had the word around changed to in or at. Here are the following examples:

• Murder of Dru Sjodin had its wording changed from Around 4:00 pm to At 4:00 pm
• Don Black (white supremacist) had its wording changed from Around 1999 to In 1999

Is there something with the word around? Am I not using the word properly? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The word around is less specific that either at or in. At 4:00 pm gives an exact time, whereas around 4:00 pm means the time might have been 4:00 pm or might have been a different time near 4:00 pm. In 1999 means sometime during that specific year, whereas around 1999 means the year might been 1999 but it might been a different year close to 1999. Since the original enwiki articles gave specific times, we should keep them specific here. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Auntof6. Check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 02:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: I don't think confidentiality is required for this, so I'm answering here. I don't think that page violates Wikipedia:User page. That includes the information you removed, which I don't think needed to be removed. If you want to pursue this, feel free to take it to RFD: I don't think there's a QD option that covers your concerns. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Jew (section)

Hello, You have recently corrected this part of another contributor. Arriving to patrol, I found this sentence complicated. I changed it as follows:

• original: "When the Jews were made into slaves in Egypt, God chose Moses to be an ambassador for him (God) and to plead for the case to free the 12 tribes of Israel."
• modified: "When the Jews were turned into slaves in Egypt, God chose Moses to be his ambassador (God) and pleaded for the liberation of the 12 tribes of Israel."

Could you tell me if you see an improvement? Sincerly. --Eihel (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel:I don't think the modified version is better. In fact, the modified version has incorrect grammar.

• The Jews weren't "turned into" slaves, they became slaves.
• In the second clause, it sounds like God did two things: 1) chose Moses to be his ambassador and 2) pleaded for the libreation of the tribes. The word God in parentheses doesn't make sense in the modified version.

Besides that, liberation is a more complex word than free.

How about this: "When the Jews were made slaves in Egypt, God told Moses to ask for them to be freed." --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I will modify. Thanks for the help. Codially. --Eihel (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving cats in redirected categories

It keeps amusing me but sometimes you are too good clearing lists. You keep moving stuff that is waiting for bots to deal with it so we can't see the bots are working before we let the bots loose without people watching them. I keep redirecting categories and leaving them but there is a 7 day cooling period on such redirecting (incase people change their minds) before bots will move the articles and you always seem to move them before the cooling period is done. It is just funny cause you are out botting the bots. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I know that bots take care of that, but I didn't know about the 7-day thing. I don't always clear redirected categories. I just did these because the target categories showed up in the unused categories list, which I monitor. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the cool down I think is just something that the main wikibot code added in so that bots wouldn't war with each other if people kept changing the redirect back and forth. I wasn't saying you did anything wrong. Just that its amusing because it has happened a few times lately. I will remember next time to move one article so it won't show up on your radar. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. I didn't take it as you saying I did something wrong. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Either way looks like my bot is doing it automatically now, as well as archiving daily over night now. So finally got the talk page archiving being consistent again. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day 2019

Happy Valentine's Day Auntof6! Angela Maureen (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline QD Colby

Hi, I see that you reverted my request for QD saying that "previous deletions were QD, but there must have been a successful RFD to use this QD option". However, it did go to discussed deletion. Here. Sorry I added the wrong URL before. Not sure where the archived RfD discussions are these days. This editor just added an initial. So, please either unrevert my QD request or act on it. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gotanda: The RfD you are referring to was closed out as a QD Criteria not a completed deletion discussion, that makes the QD request you made it under invalid. If the RfD had gone through then it would have been correct, but since it was ended early under a different QD Criteria it was not a valid request to delete as recreated material. If there is another valid QD reason you can feel free to make it under or if you feel it doesn't but has other deletion reasons please take it to RfD -- Enfcer (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to ask again, but this comes up. I nominated for QD. It was declined. I nominated for RFD and it was deleted but since the deleting editor Vermont cited QD criteria it was not a discussed deletion even though at RfD? If Vermont had not cited QD criteria would it then have been a discussed deletion? I'll let this go now as I guess they have changed it a bit, but it really is confusing. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gotanda: I know it can be a little confusing, but you have to see how the deletion discussion was closed out in this case the deletion discussion did not conclude because another Admin reviewed it and found a Copyvio reason so there was no need to go through with the discussion. Also just because a QD was declined under one criteria, does not mean another one is not appropriate. When we review a QD we do not always see something under another view, which could cause it to be deleted. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gotanda: It was a copyright violation. My deletion didn't have anything to do with the validity of content in the article or the notability of the person. There was no discussion, and the RfD is not citable. Vermont (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

using certain terms

Every time I use as a result of, the term gets changed to other terms. Also, there had been deadly and destructive storm surges from hurricanes was changed to storm surges caused by hurricanes killed people and caused damage. For what particular reason? I thought these terms were simple. Angela Maureen (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The answer is a combination of things. Sometimes the words aren't simple. Sometimes they are simple (that is, they are on the basic English word list), but there's a clearer or even simpler way to say things.

When we talk about writing simple English, part of it is referring to the lists of simple words and using only those as much as possible. Another part is knowing how to use those words in simple ways and knowing how to phrase things in a way that's clear and understandable to people who don't know English well. For example, the word result is on the combined wordlist, but the word because is on the basic list, so it's simpler. Sometimes it's also good not to use multiple words, such as as a result of, when you can use fewer. (On the other hand, sometimes you need to use more words to say something in simple words.) When you're translating from regular English, you just have to know how to rephrase things without changing the meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)