User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2015

Why

I've already written so many so-called abusive things on simple.wikipedia.org, but please tell me the reason why you do not block me until this moment! I don't want to disturb anybody, but I just wonder why! Anyway, Happy New Year! Janagewen (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If you don't block me in a hurry, would you please do me a favour redirect x86-64 to X64? Thank you! Janagewen (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've done it myself! Janagewen (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I wasn't ignoring you, @Janagewen:. I just hadn't had time to look into this yet. You said something about blocking you, but I didn't see anything that would make us want to block you. So I'm not sure what you were talking about. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

Can you please block this vandal? Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -- 48 hours. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to change the parameters. He is vandalizing the talk page. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 04:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think what he/she did there merits talk page blocking. He entered an unblock request (which I will leave for another admin to review (or not), and added a blank line. Not a big deal. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

He/she is doing that in order to generate notifications on the countervalism channels. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 04:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with countervandalism channels. Please explain. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Every single edit on the small wikis generates a log on the countervandalism channels. Since he/she is already blocked, he/she is problaby trying to hinder the work of those who monitors these channels. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 05:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and blocked the talk page access, so I hope that takes care of it for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hey Auntof6, I decided to change the format of Ronald Reagan's presidency section since there where some events such as speeches and events that were out of order. I looked at the English Wikipedia and based the article's appearance on it. I added some more info and I was wondering if you can give me a feedback on it if I should restore the article the way it was or on ways to make this version better. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me which edit(s) you're talking about, so I know what to compare? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I added subheadings under Reagan's presidency. This way more events are even more organized by Reagan's first and second term. It's pretty noticeable if you examine the "Presidency" section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Včelka Mája 2/sandbox

Please restore this page, i want copy and save source code. There was been important text for me, some articles and pages for Czech Wikipedia.--Smurf Toma646 (send me mail | talk) 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to restore a page that isn't helpful to this Wiki, but I can email you the text. Can I use the email linked in your signature? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, its right email adress.--Smurf Toma646 (send me mail | talk) 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, I forgot that I can't email from Wikipedia because of a limitation of Yahoo email. If you send me an email through the "Email this user" link, I will reply to it and include that text. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Email arrived, thantks.--Smurf Toma646 (send me mail | talk) 11:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese junior colleges & 2015

I saw the delete for the talk page that I missed when closing your RfD of Japanese junior colleges. Thanks for catching it, I thought I had gotten them all. That was a Large RfD to close, I think I got the rest of the items on that RfD. I also saw the post you had made about the glitch in the closing of RfD's across years, and thought I had changed it but it must not have taken. Had to restore, and re-delete 2 of them.

Take care & Happy New Year. -- Enfcer (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that and the others -- it's interesting to see nothing active at RfD right now! I would have been happy to do the deleting, because it's much easier to load the titles into AWB and delete them one after the other. That talk page just had an "old rfd" notice on it -- it had been nominated for RfD before. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is unusual and kinda nice to see the RfD area at 0 for a change. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Formatting Problem with Template

I have noticed lately, that the citations that use the template {{Cite book}} have been having problems as you can see, on this article as an example, Flag of India#References I would try to fix them, but I can't because those templates, are under complete and cascading protection. I was wondering if you could take a look into the problem and see how it can be fixed, as the template works, but it has errors, as you can see, which kind of makes the article look messy, and messes up the reference. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with this. We started seeing that a few months ago. (See this Simple Talk archive for the discussion at that time.) I looked at it, as did other editors, but couldn't figure it out. My experience with template coding is limited. In any case, I suspect the problem isn't with the individual templates, but with a software change that affected the way they work. I think that because none of the templates that have this problem looked like they were changed around the time we started seeing the bad formatting. I don't know where to go with it from here. We might have to ask MediaWiki for help. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that, has anyone tried submitting a bug report? If not I can submit one, if you would like to co-report? And has anyone even tried changing over the citation templates, to lua? As it should be really easy to import the modules needed. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, no bug report has been submitted. You might want to post at Simple Talk first just to check. Is a co-reporter needed? I don't know anything concrete, I'm just guessing at what the problem might be. I'd be glad to be a second contact for the problem, although you might prefer to recruit someone with more expertise. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Import Request

I would like to request if you can import the template, {{Infobox animanga/Print}} from the English Wikipedia, or if you can create the page, as I can't due to the fact that it is under a titleblacklist although all it has is infobox formatting as it is for the template {{Infobox animanga/Header}} as it is for that, as I found that template, as I was trying to add an infobox to the article, and we happen to have it though it was buggy due to there being a template loop, which I have since fixed so I decided to go ahead and bring all of the the templates needed so I can completely bring the infobox over. Thank you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I imported it with its doc page. That black list entry will prevent you from editing it as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Move Page

Hello! I do not have permission to move pages here, but one article Wonder Pets is improperly titled. It should end with an exclamation mark, as Wonder Pets! instead of its current state. Please move the page! --Squiddaddy (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that on English Wikipedia this same move was proposed and they decided not to rename the article. Therefore I don't want to move it. However, I have created a redirect with the exclamation point. That will lead people to the article if they use the exclamation point. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Update Illinois offices

Hey Auntof6, I was wondering if on January 12 you can help me update all of the offices in Illinois which have been changed as a result of the 2014 elections. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I could do that. Where would I get the information? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

the pronunciation of "Rene"

Hey Auntof6, how is the name "Rene" pronounced? I heard that it's either reen or re-NAY. I need an answer regarding this matter. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's usually the second one. It's a French name, and in French it's spelled with an accent, like this: René, or Renée for females. That kind of accent makes the "E" be pronounced "ay". Of course, people can pronounce their names any way they want, so there could be someone with the name who pronounces it differently. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But some females use the "René" form. One strong example is the actress Rene Russo. There are other females having the form "René". That is true, isn't it? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about how it's spelled in French, not English. When any word gets adopted from one language to another, the spelling might change. It's pronounced the same either way. By the way, there are other females with names that are traditionally male, like Michael Learned. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Template generated cats

Hi AuntofSix, I was helping another editor disable/remove categories in articles while they were working on them in their sandboxes. One category was invisible, until I realised it was being generated by a template in the infobox. In this particular case it was the Australian places infobox. I did a quick experiment to see if adding the colon would simply disable it without breaking the template and it worked. So in the first line the disabled version looks like " Infobox Australian place |type = :town " so all that needs to be done when moving it to main space is to remove the colon. I thought I would share this with you, as I didn't know about it before. Still have lots to learn.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I never thought of that before. That template has a list of place types that it knows how to categorize. If you give it something it doesn't recognize, it doesn't generate a category. That template also has a "_noautocat" parameter that can be used to suppress categorization.

I sometimes get irritated at templates that categorize, because 1) sometimes you don't want the categories that the template assigns and 2) you can't specify a separate sort key if you need to. A lot of templates with categories have a "nocat" parameter, but not enough of them. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Canadian actresses

Should this cat be deleted? Jim Michael (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's gone. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

House of La Trémoille

Good lord!! Give me a chance to simplify them at least. Gods sake. Simplegoose (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a couple of hours. Articles should really be simplified before they're posted at all. You might want to work in your userspace to get things simplified before putting them in mainspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with testing

Are you around for a little bit? I would like to step through the changes that were made on en.wiki since the last time we were synched with them in 2009 to see if I can narrow down what change it was that did it. But I will need someone that has the problem to tell me if the problem comes back. -DJSasso (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Right now I could give you as much as two and a half hours. Would that be long enough? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Should only take a few minutes. The file that was edited only has like 20 or so edits since 2009. I will just update our version to the version at the end of 2011 and if it still works I will move up a year etc to see where the conflict is for us. I will message you here when I make a change and get you to refresh. Speaking of which I just did one now. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I still see the button. I only checked on Firefox. Do you want me to check on any other browser, like on my Kindle? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No firefox will be fine. Just trying to get us closer to the most current en.wiki version so if its still working for you then so far so good. Go ahead and try to refresh again. -DJSasso (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I still see the button. FYI, I'm actually exiting my browser, then purging the cache when I come back in, just to be sure. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I get you to try again...stupid me pasted it onto en.wiki by mistake....so I am sure someone there will be sending me a nasty message. Whoops -DJSasso (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Now the button appears briefly then disappears, like it was doing before. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup I had a feeling it might be part of these changes...let me see what I can dig up. You can go if you want. I have a better idea of how to narrow the issue down now. Thanks for your help. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll probably be around for a bit, in case you have something else. I'd be interested in hearing what you come up with. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, thanks for looking into this. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I was curious last time you mentioned it but I was swamped in July with work so I never got around to looking for you. I am curious do you by chance use the gadget "Real-Time Recent Changes". The part of the code that I think is doing it has a comment about hiding the button for people using enhanced recent changes. And I am wondering if that is the same thing as Real-Time Recent Changes. -DJSasso (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have that gadget enabled. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

removal of word though

Hey Auntof6, I recently noticed that the word though is being removed, often replaced with but. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to look at the specific articles. Can you give me some examples? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles Semi-vegetarianism and Statutory rape are good examples. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In those cases, I thought but was a better word. Though implies an element of "despite that", which didn't fit in the places where I changed it. Besides that, but is a simpler word, even though they're both on the simple word list.

By the way, it's helpful (not to mention courteous) to link articles that you want someone to look at. It's OK to have the links on talk pages. Also, please indent your replies. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

lots of replaced with many

Hey Auntof6. I just noticed Lots of being replaced with many within certain articles (example: Brenda Holloway). Can you please tell me why? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Many" is more formal. Encyclopedia articles should have a fairly formal tone. See en:WP:TONE for more information. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dead Link

Would you mind fixing it? Eurodyne (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't fix a dead link. You just have to either remove the reference or find another reference to support the item. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are too many dead links will the article not become a GA? Would you mind peer editing it real quick? Eurodyne (talk)

I will look at it, but I can't do it real quick. There shouldn't be any hurry here. I see that you removed the references that had dead links. Some of the statements that those references supported really should have references. Did you try to find new references for them? Also, when you remove named references, be sure to remove all the places that use them -- there are still some left, making errors display in the references section. I would rather you put the references back until we see if we can find replacements for them. Let's continue this on the article's talk page -- I'm watching the article now so I'll see any comments you make there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

change of formats

Hey Auntof6, what's the reason for format change? For example, 12 July 1951 becomes July 12, 1951 with Cheryl Ladd. Please tell me. Angela Maureen (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A format like "July 12, 1951" (called "mdy" for "month-day-year") is the American way of writing a date, and should be used in articles about American topics. The other format (called "dmy" for "day-month-year") is the British/European way of writing dates. If you're interested, you can learn more about this at en:WP:ENGVAR. (Our --Auntof6 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Story

The Story of Doctor Dolittle. What shall I do now? Is this OK? --Windell (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think my image works. I don't know why. --Windell (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture fixed, wrong file name. Need to get your images from Wikimedia Commons rather than the English Wikipedia.--Peterdownunder (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Windell (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Windell:, I see that some others have done some work on the article, and I just did some more. If you have any questions about what we did, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

help me please

I'm gonna need help on the simplifying of the page Psychological trauma. I don't know anything else to take the place of the other complex words. Angela Maureen (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just getting back to that when you left this message! :) I need to think about this one a bit, so be please be patient. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You did a wonderful job on the page. Now it could be moved back. Angela Maureen (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you please do me a favour?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Even though I think this request is a bit more ridiculous, but I just wish, if you would like.

I've been attacked from en.wikipedia.org, and their fellows from zh.wikipedia.org too. Yeah, I do really say a lot of bad or even threaten-like words, because I was disordered at that moment. Because I suffered from their attacks. So do please help me say something fair and reasonable for me please on here. I do not fear to be locked or blocked globally. But I just wish there is someone would stand on a fair side not to attack me too much. So I just wish you do me a favour there. Please, please and please!

Yours, sincerely

Janagewen (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting you again! That's over. But after all, so many people dislike me here and there, may I have the reason to ask you whether I am welcome to simple.wikipedia.org when my English skill is poor? I know I brought here to many troubles, and may I have the future possible to edit on simple.wikipedia.org after I relearn English writing some a time? OK, please do not waste your time too much for my disruption. Anyway, thank you very much!

Janagewen (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Prime Ministers of Thailand

Hey Auntof6, I was observing the article Prime Ministers of Thailand and I feel that it is not notable because it only gives biographies of all PM of Thailand. Should the article just be about the position and duties? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The Prime Minister of a country is certsinly a notable topic. It could use some decent references. It's a list article. An article about the position and duties would probably be called "Prime Minister of Thailand" (singular). --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

88.113.156.206

Can you please block this vandal? xWiki vandalism (also blocked on enwiki). Thanks, Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. I can look at whether we block longer for xwiki: what is the evidence for that? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A 48 hours block is enough. He has been vandalizing on enwiki. Once he was blocked, he came here. If he keeps vandalizing on other wikis, I'll ask for a global block. But it seems there is no need for that. Global edits. Thanks, Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 03:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

From anon.: I have made a request already. And, please, I am waiting. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:F994:C8F8:9EB3:ECAC (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you mental sick?

I've found so many articles that I made modifications had been reverted by you. And obviously, it is attacks from you for not welcome me editing here. You are absolutely mental sick! Do you know the difference between version and edition? Do you know what is simple English? If you want to block me from editing? Do please! Do not make any fucking stupid things to what I contribute here! Where the fuck you come from does not take any matter with me! Janagewen (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think my English is poor, so I am sorry! Janagewen (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please help block me from editing!

According to your ridiculous explanation and turning-backs of x86 and Windows XP rather than make further correction and modification, I believe you are an ineligible editor! And I have not penny to communicate with you anymore! So I just request to block me from editing of simple.Wikipedia.org, because I've said lot of abusive words here too! Janagewen (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think my English is poor, so I am sorry! Janagewen (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppeteer

Currently, Janagewen is making personal attacks on other editors. Please block him. 108.194.238.251 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The only personal attack I see is the one he made on me on my talk page. I'm reluctant to block for that, because it was related to our disagreement on edits of his/hers that I reverted. I've asked the other admins to take a look, though, so they might block him/her. Also, personal attacks are not sock puppetry (referring to the heading of this section). --Auntof6 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@108.194.238.251, Sorry, I've blanked my user talk page, because I might think that is the conversation between you and I. I misunderstand or mistake! I am sorry!

@Auntof6, whether my user account would be blocked, I won't complain to you. But I've to say, on my own behalf, this is not a personal attack, but only for my modifications have been gone. For saying that does not mean I eat my words, but just for make it clear. Sorry! Janagewen (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling another editor "mental sick" is a personal attack, no matter why you said it. Using bad language is also not appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I am mental sick. I am sorry, I just wish all my stupid and meaningless words won't hurt you or trouble you. So I say sorry again! Janagewen (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Janagewen: I think we should start a discussion regarding with your disruptive editing. Auntof6, start it at WP:ANI. 108.194.238.251 (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@108.194.238.251, I think I should make a response to you. Because you are using the IP address, so you made you think you were Auntof6. To be frank, we never know each other, without any practical meaning to know each other. And also I do not want to hurt anybody. So, if you think I am not welcome, you have all the reasons to block all my user accounts listed here, like you did to my user account Computerfaner. And I won't make any complaint to you, if you do it. So I think I do not need to waste your and others' treasurable time to do this meaningless thing! So is that ok and enough? Janagewen (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Janagewen, an IP user cannot block your account. Only the admins and other bureaucrats can do that using their registered accounts. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, because I am completely confused! What do you mean? If you, Auntof6, want to block me from simple.wikipedia.org. OK! For anything else, I think without worthy needing mentioned. As to my messages left to you, now at this moment, I've no words to explain, because I do not know how to explain. Anyway, all is up to you. And I wish you everything goes well. Janagewen (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Auntof6,

Hello! Now I've been blocked from simple.wikipedia.org and locked globally, this is my very last account here. I know every road has its end, and every party has its part. Now matter how sad I am right now, but I have to say thank you to you and simple.wikipedia.org. Because this is my very last stop on Wikipedia.org, and from here I've chance to practice my English writing skill. I am sorry to say lots of stupid words here, but I could not rewind the time. No matter what you dealt with me, it does not really matter. Anyway, before, blocked and locked, I have to say thank you. Wish you everything goes well, and have a good day! Bye!

Yours, sincerely,

Janagewen

Remover remover (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Remover remover: Furthermore, I see that your account was created by Janagewen. And the other account Computerfan was blocked. So, your account may be blocked soon. 108.194.238.251 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ted Stevens; et al.

Hey Auntof6. As you probably figured out, I added a stub for Pro tempore yesterday and linked several pages which used that term. At any rate, the article Ted Stevens raised an issue with me regarding capitalization. The article, as I found it, used the proper noun “President Pro Tempore of the Senate”. I probably should have just used the link President pro tempore of the United States Senate, another article I linked, but according to the United States Senate web page, the title, including the words pro tempore, is capitalized. I had checked our MOS which states: “The correct formal name of an office is a proper noun and should be capitalized”. I intended to create the links and go, but nothing is that simple around here. I kept turning up other problems. I know capitalization rules vary by style guides and grammarians. Nobody it seems agrees exactly on which words to capitalize in a title. At any rate I intended to come back to this issue when I had the time. Your edit on Ted Stevens reminded me of the problem. The statement now reads: “He was at one time "President pro tempore of the Senate". Now, if you substitute “Vice President”, another formal title, it would be capitalized (e.g. He was at one time Vice President of the United States). President Pro Tempore is a proper noun (and elected office in the senate) so I left it capitalized as-is until I had a chance to fix some of this. Another problem is that the Ted Stevens article has confused the title 'President Pro Tempore of the Senate' with the honorary title 'President Pro Tempore Emeritus of the United States Senate' in its description. So I intended to go back and do some more editing there. But there seems to be a capitalization issue with this title in its own article and as used elsewhere. Some uses are inconsistent with the MOS and how the Senate itself uses the title. You see the problem here? Rus793 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

On a related issue, I changed the title of "President pro tempore of the United States Senate" to President Pro Tempore of the Senate, per MOS and the official title as used in congress. There are some 40 links to the old name. You use AWB, is this something it can do? I could also edit them manually. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's capitalized. I think it's written with capitals on that Senate page because it's in a heading and they capitalize all words in their headings. See how they write "Related Links" and all the other headings with capitals? In the text paragraph, they don't capitalize it. The enwiki article doesn't capitalize it, nor does the text on the official US Senate page about it (except in headings, as mentioned above), his official congressional biography, or his BBC obituary. I'm not sure it's an official office. It's not an elected office in the sense that a senator or president is elected -- it's only called elected because the senators have to pick the person somehow and they do it by voting. "President pro tempore" just means "president for the time being", "president" being the actual office. So unless we get some consensus to the contrary, I would not change the articles and I would move the article back. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think it's a proper title, albeit a procedural one. Let me look into this more this afternoon and get back to you. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is another chance?

I've just read One Strike, and I just realize what I did yesterday led me to block, and locked without reason, or without a proper reason. Anyway, would you please leave me another chance? I do not think I bring you some troubles, because you almost ignore all my reasonable request even like redirect x86-64 to x64. As I always said, I wish this is only a misunderstand between each others. So I just hope you leave me another chance. Block me from editing from Wikipedia.org is reasonable, but lock me from the global Wikipedia.org, I would say what you do or what you manage others do is unfair to not only me but also the entire Wikipedia.org! I wish you clear you mind, and take some correct effect. Because I was blocked involved with you, so I need you to make some comments on meta, here. The reason I need you make comment there is because that is you managed me to be locked! — This unsigned comment was added by 119.53.111.124 (talk • changes) on 00:07, 27 January 2015‎.

If you are indeed Janagewen, then you should not be editing under an IP address. That is called block evasion. If you continue to do that you will lose your ability to edit your own talk page. If you want to request an unblock, please use the standard procedure. You would put the template {{unblock}} on your user page. Instructions are in the documentation for that template. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Landslide victory

I've added some more information to the article. Just asking what more do I need to add to keep it at the Simple English. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I did some work on it. I simplified some parts and removed some. The first sentence in the last paragraph didn't make sense to me so I reworded it. Let me know what you think. In the examples, I think it would be good to give specifics about why each one is considered to be a landslide. I know there is an image about one of them, but it would be good to have it in the text as well.

By the way, the article appears to be based on the enwiki article. If that is true, then remember to put attribution on the talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

about the song

Hey Auntof6, I don't really know how to clarify the info in Ice Ice Baby. The "successful" part may need reference. For what reason was record changed to the word album? Was record complex or unneeded? Angela Maureen (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying "successful": what source said the song wasn't successful? That source might say what it meant. If it doesn't, you could find a reference for one of the ways that a song can be unsuccessful and change the word to say that.

Record: The word "record" is a bit outdated, and it isn't as clear as the word "album". That's because sometimes the word "record" is used to specifically mean vinyl recordings, not CDs and other forms that albums take these days. "Album" means the collection of songs released together, no matter what form it takes.

By the way, when a message is left on your talk page, it's usual to reply there, so that the entire conversation is kept together. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked text

I had commented on your decline on the blocked text page but I decided to roll it all back there and let you know on your talk page instead. This request was from a long time vandal. They make that request every few weeks/months for years, we usually just revert and often block the IP as evading a block/disruptive editing. Just thought I would let you know incase you run into it again. Look at that page history and you will get some of the history. They also post to admins talk pages and sometimes to simple talk. I did not block the 108 IP as it looks like it wasn't him making the request, he just reverted Chenzw's revert. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

can you help create the page for me its about my self

my website is www.skynetunitedstates.wix.com/koyakingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.90 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't be interested in doing that. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So called complex words

Are rekindle and faded really complex words? If so, for what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

They are complex because they are not on Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. That is why I keep telling you to look at that list. That list is the reference we use to determine which words are complex, and is the whole basis for what we do on this Wikipedia. Actually, the list we should use is Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist, which has only 850 words, but we stretch it to the other list, which has 2,626 words. Any word not on that list that is used in an article is supposed to be either linked, explained, or replaced. It's easier to read if simpler words are used rather than explaining or linking.

Keep in mind, though, that some words have multiple meanings. When words on the list have more than one meaning, it could be that not all the meanings are considered simple. An example of this is the word "pan". It's simple when it means something you cook in. It's not simple when used in the expressions "The critics panned the movie" (meaning they didn't like it) or "to pan out" (meaning to have a successful outcome). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Auntof6: you may wish to further address how a person can suggest changes to the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. (Said because as an educator, I see point of excluding "rekindle," but might take issue, for various reasons, with "fade".) Conformity is always an acceptable path of institutional participation; so too should be reform, and in my view, we should encourage the latter. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Words can't be added to that list, as they are based on a very specific referenced set of words. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:British Prime Ministers

Should this category be renamed Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom since that's the formal name of the office. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not as it is. Some of the people in the category were prime ministers of Great Britain, not the UK, for example Robert Walpole. I suppose you could split them into separate categories if we have enough to justify that. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to try splitting it, I could run the names through AWB to filter out the ones that were for Great Britain. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That be great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Template:UKPrimeMinisters the ones in the upper section were for Great Britain and the ones in the lower section were for the UK. There are at least two who are in both lists. We could actually stand to update this template: enwiki's version is more current than ours. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. First thing tomorrow. So what should we call the two categories? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Same as enwiki: Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Prime Ministers of Great Britain. Make sure you catch the ones that go in both (including the template). You could put {{cat see also}} hatnotes on each one. After the split, you will want to delete the current category and adjust the Wikidata entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am strongly in favour of "British Prime Ministers" as the sole category. It is universally used in the United Kingdom and far, far simpler. [By universally used I include radio, television, newspapers and ordinary people] The more impossibly complex categories get, the more difficult it is for readers and editors to remember what they are. Nor do I think the category should be split. It helps no-one to split it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

High tea wasn't a biography last time I checked...

Hey I noticed (and reverted) your addition of a BLP Unsourced tag on High tea. I'm fairly sure High tea is not a person, so its definitely not a BLP. While I'm sure it was an accident I just thought I would leave you a note as to why I undid it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that! I have a stored block of text that consists of several different tags I often use. I add it to an article and delete the ones I don't need. I must have missed deleting the BLP unsourced tag this time. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Joker (The Dark Knight)

Do you think that The Joker (The Dark Knight) would be a notable article here or will it be merged? In the English Wikipedia it appears to be notable to be on its own. Your thoughts? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That would depend on what and how much is in it. The enwiki article has in-depth character analysis with a lot of references about this specific portrayal of the Joker. If a new article weren't very long, it might get merged with or redirected to Joker (comics). If it doesn't cover much that isn't already in the plot section of The Dark Knight (movie), it might get merged with or redirected to that article. It all depends. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see comment

…in the Talk section of this venues' Main Page, here [1]. Your guidance and feedback would be most helpful. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have replied there. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look here as well

…in the edit summaries, here, [2], and at the reverting editor's Talk page, here [3]. The immediate, seemingly pro forma revert without Edit Summary or discussion is a flag of a clear issue with regard to how article content control and editing here are viewed. If this site is simply another, smaller set of fiefdoms of arrogantly controlled content, with required legerdemain to make even simple edits or progress, then I will not even begin participating. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment here on what the other editor did. I suggest you wait and see what the reverting editor has to say in response to your message on his/her talk page, and don't assume that all editors always revert without explanation.

As far as your future participation, your language on talk pages and in the article edits I've seen is not the kind of simple language called for here. You might like to look at some of our pages about writing simple English. The welcome message on your talk page has links to some of them. I see that you've only been here for a day or so. It could also be helpful to take some more time to get familiar with the other differences in the way this Wiki operates. I've tried to document some of them here. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

the "complex" articles

For what particular reason do you have articles you think are complex redirected into my userspace? Please tell me. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Angela, I have seen this question and I am thinking about how to answer. I will get back to you soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Angela, one reason I move articles to your userspace is when they are quite complex. To write articles here, you need to be able to write in simple language. If you aren't writing in simple language, then you aren't writing in the language of this Wikipedia.

The other reason I move articles to your userspace is when I see incorrect information. I do this especially when it looks like you have not understood the original information correctly, or simplified the text in a way that changes the meaning to something incorrect. When an article has incorrect information in it, there's a chance it could be deleted as a hoax, depending on what else is in it.

When these issues are minor, sometimes I make the fixes myself. However, compared to most people here, you create a lot of articles, so you need to be able to make the articles simple and correct yourself. Moving them to your userspace lets you take your time to do that while not leaving complex or inaccurate articles in mainspace. It also allows time for me to try to coach you in making the changes. Maybe you don't appreciate the coaching, and maybe I don't do it very well, but I don't know another way to help you learn. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Move Category:Australian Governors-General

Should Category:Australian Governors-General be renamed or moved to Category:Governors General of Australia? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You could, but with a hyphen in it. It would be a little more accurate, and would be consistent with our other Governor-General categories (and with enwiki's). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Simplify Hurricane Grace (1991)

Would you mind simplifying the Hurricane Grace (1991) article? As you already know, I'm trying to get this from a GA to a VGA. Hurricane Grace (1991)#Meteorological_history part especially? I've already tried to simplify the other sections. Thanks, Eurodyne (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up on Bruce Jenner

There has been a lot of speculation of Bruce Jenner transitioning into a woman. There are a lot of sources confirming this but they all direct to PEOPLE's magazine claim. I am waiting until Jenner himself confirms this. He has an interview with Diane Sawyer about this (not sure when) and he'll discuss this. There has been a lot of trouble at the English Wikipedia and I assume unregistered users will be adding this information wrongfully. I'll keep and eye out. I'm just bothering you so that you are aware. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're leaving this message for me specifically, but thanks, I guess. By the way, I see that you added info about his divorce. If you add a date for a future event like that, you need a reference. It would also be good to say that the divorce is expected to be finalized in March -- that way, if it doesn't actually happen then, the article would still be accurate. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Random question. Do you this article List of Presidents of Peru is notable? I find too short, needs more info and in need of an update. Should it be deleted? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's notable, and I don't think it should be deleted. Being incomplete and needing an update aren't reasons to delete it, IMO. You might like to look at the guideline on notability of lists for more info. I think this list satisfies the guideline. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna need help for "Tetraplegia"

I'm gonna need help for "Tetraplagia" on simplifying the other complex words and phrases. Can you please help me? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now I'm working on something else. I will look at it after that. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism only ip

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.29.164.98 What should we do about this user?--FDR (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@FDR:, I see that another admin has blocked this user. By the way, for best results, please report vandals at WP:Vandalism in progress. That way it's more likely that an available admin will see the problem and take care of it. It also helps if you warn vandals after you undo their changes. There are many standard templates for that purpose. Let me know if you would like more info on that. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request For My Account Unblock

Hello Auntof6,

I request to unblock my account and my website from english wikipedia as I have been invited by Admin Adb from Wikiversity for creating educational resources and advised me to request the unblock to other administrators. I know i have been blocked for a reason and I am sorry for what i have did and i promise you that it will never happen again. I have been blocked for spamming-advertising and sockpuppetry, I regret my actions. I think 5 months block is enough penalty for that. I assure you that damage or disruption was never the intention nor it is now, i just wanted to help community and when my account got banned, in desperation I opened another account and I regret my actions. I have some information which is not updated on wiki like Protools page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Tools where Protools First is not listed http://apps.avid.com/ProToolsFirst/

Once again I regret inconvenience caused to admins and I swear on god that it will never happen again.So the block is no longer necessary. As I am creating learning resource I am making useful contribution to the community. Even prisoners get Payroll for their good behaviour and so I request you to consider my case for the unblock. I am really very serious about creating an eduction resource and Admin Adb has warned me that if I make another mistake then he himself will block me. I have chance to create something which can be useful for a lot of people. I regret form the bottom of my heart and request you to unblock me as soon as possible.

• I understand my blocking my account and website for spam- advertising is deserved by me and I regret my actions. I assure you that it will not happen in future. I can review my edits from admins first and if only they approve i will edit wiki.
• I do not wish to cause any damage or disruption to the Wikipedia community. It never was the motive. I am bad at editing wikipedia and because of that I made multiple mistakes and stuck in this situation. I assure you that I won't repeat the mistakes again.
• I have never ever been booked for even driving. This block is a big distress for me and I am dying in my guilt. I am feeling like I have been imprisoned and drowning in that depression. I am a good citizen and never caused any distress to society. I am ashamed of my actions and assure you that It won't happen again. This unblock is most important for my mental stability.I am dying in guilt. I can even provide you written apology if you wish to get me unbanned.Please I don't wish to die in depression.
• I have been invited by Wikiversity to create an educations resource if I get unblocked. I am very serious about this educational resource but do not want this scar of block on my name. I don't know what to write but rest assure that I will never cause any kind of problem to you. Thank you for your time

Regards

Bhushan Mahadani Mahadani82 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your block is not on this Wikipedia. It is on the English Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. No one here can help you with a block at English Wikipedia. You will need to ask for an unblock on English Wikipedia, not here. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

captions

Hey Auntof6, I noticed that the name "Lili Anne" was removed from the caption on Lili Taylor. Please tell me about that. Angela Maureen (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The caption doesn't need the person's full birth name if that isn't the name they go by. It could have been "Taylor" or "Lili Taylor". You could put back her first name if you want. By the way, Lili Taylor is one of my favorite actresses, so thanks for this article! Have you seen any of her work? I especially liked her in Household Saints and The Notorious Bettie Page. --Auntof6 (talk)

AD better known

Re:Mayan pyramids: we've had this discussion before, and chose AD as better known by our readers. CE (which amounts to the same thing) is not so well known amongst ordinary people as academics like to think. It also has a whiff of outdated political correctness. I made the change on that basis, not because I like the system or anything of that kind. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. All I did was put back a link. I wasn't expressing a preference for "CE". --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the info, I actually had trouble with those, I couldn't figure out how to fix themat all. Sorry for not fixing them. I'll try a little better next time if I can. 72.71.212.194 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop make deconstructive edits to Windows XP. If you could not differentiate words edition and version, please look them up from your dictionaries. If you are not familiar with editions and versions of Windows XP, please visit Microsoft official website or contact with Microsoft. Please stop reverting! Thank you! — This unsigned comment was added by 103.25.56.68 (talk • changes) on 08:30, 11 February 2015‎.

I reverted the changes to Windows XP because the change made by you and other IP editors did not make sense. It had nothing to do with the difference between versions and editions. The part that didn't make sense was "two versions once released". Maybe you could try to say that another way. Remember that here we write for people with limited English ability, and multiple clauses in a sentence can be confusing. I know you can't edit the page right now because it has been protected, but if you'd like to explain what it means here, maybe we could work out how it should be worded. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Learning from you

Hello Auntof6,

Why you think the following sentence is nonsense?

There was also a very rare edition for 64-bit Itanium computers, two versions once released: Windows XP 64-bit Edition and Windows XP 64-bit Edition Version 2003.

Is there some grammar mistakes or improper expression? Why?

I've got in touch with Itanium computers, directly or indirectly, since Spring 2005, about ten years. So I do not think it leads a misunderstand of versions or editions of Windows XP. Windows XP 64-bit Edition is a separate edition from Home and Professional, first version, Windows XP 64-Bit Edition (Version 2002), released in October, 2001; the second version, Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003, released in May 2003. They are the same edition, but two sequential versions, or in other words, the latter one is succeeding the former one. So I do not think I made some disruptive edits and I do not think differentiate versions of editions is non-sense. We are both everyone, equivalent to each other. You are not my boss and I am not your employer. The only goal is to make wiki article readable and reliable. If I do something wrong to you, then I say sorry. But for the wiki article I think we both must calm down to discuss rather than kick out of each other. 103.25.58.14 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the change was disruptive, and I didn't say it was nonsense. I said it didn't make sense. It's a question of not being clear. It's also not very simple, partly because it's one long sentence. Remember that we need to write in very simple language here, and that includes sentence structure, not just individual words. Even if it weren't trying to be simple, though, it doesn't read very well and it's hard to understand. In any case, now that I've read your explanation, let me try to rephrase it, and you tell me if this says what you think it should (I got the names of the versions from the enwiki article):

There was also a very rare edition for 64-bit Itanium computers: Windows XP 64-bit Edition. Two versions of it were released. The first version was Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for Itanium systems, Version 2002. The second version was Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Version 2003.

By the way, I worked in the computer industry, and I understand very well the different between editions and versions, so you don't need to keep explaining it to me. That isn't even the issue here. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've taught a fish to swim! I am completely sorry! Also a wrong tree barked I. But your attitude about that article, I felt extreme disappointed. Maybe that is the level your guys want the quality to reach. The issue is that I would try to persuade all my people leave here. Or set a block to it is just ok. Thanks! — This unsigned comment was added by 199.19.95.59 (talk • changes) on 11:44, 11 February 2015‎.

I could not ask a jerk act like a gentleman, but your rephrasing is excellent, if adapted into the main article, that would help even more readers. Hey, if the very first time, you explain why you reverted on my own talk page, maybe I would not call you mental sick. But if that was your trap, then I just let it trapped. — This unsigned comment was added by 212.117.180.106 (talk • changes) on 12:16, 11 February 2015‎.

Even though two different IPs were used in the above edits, I'm assuming they were done by the same person. In any case, please sign your posts on talk pages.

As far as the edits, I have the following comments:

• The explanation for the edit was in the edit summary. It is not required to leave talk page messages for every edit that is done.
• You might not be aware that your English is general is hard to understand. A lot of what you wrote above doesn't make sense.

Finally, I believe you are Janagewen. I believe this because you referred to having called me "mental sick", and because you are editing the same things as Janagewen. If you are Janagewen, then you must stop editing immediately because you are blocked. A block applies to a person, not just a specific user account. If you are Janagewen, then your edits are block evasion and can be deleted just because they are done by a blocked user. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not care about block evasion, because Wikipedia.org would never unlock or unblock me. If I could remove all my posts, I would do by myself, but as far as I know, I could not do it. I do not think my English is hard to read or comprehend, I just believe it is only something you do not want to understand. Well, I just let you know your block, your block evasion, or anything else is only a nothing to me. Because I have proven that I come here to make things better not worse. Anything else to say as you wish.

I will accept your help gladly

Thank you — This unsigned comment was added by Johnathenphillips (talk • changes) on 00:57, 15 January 2015‎.

Austria-Este

Hiiiiii. Could you sort out the page name on Austria-Este please. Simplegoose (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Simplegoose: and @Reception123:, when you move a page between userspace and mainspace, you need to not leave a redirect behind. We don't want redirects between those. I'm not sure most editors can suppress the redirect -- it might need an admin to do those moves.

Second, no simplifying was done on the article, so I have moved it back to userspace. I did leave some notes at User talk:Simplegoose about what needs simplifying. Let me know if those notes weren't clear, or you need further explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, Auntof6 editors cannot suppress the redirect (as it would have to delete the page). Next time I will be sure to QD the page. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Morton's toe

My article, Morton's toe, was recently deleted. Did it copy the English Wikipedia article? Was it complex? I'd like to rework my article so it fits Simple English Wikipedia. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't simplified enough from the enwiki article. When an article is deleted, you can see the reason in the delete log. If you are watching the page, it should show up in your watchlist when it gets deleted, and the reason for deletion would be there. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to work this article so the article can be approved for Simple. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I could restore it to your userspace to be worked on. Before I do that, though, I'd like you to think about the times you created other articles about technical subjects. You weren't able to simplify those yourself. Are you sure you want to do another technical article? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What are my other options besides doing technical articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Some things that aren't so technical are articles about people, movies, or places. Whichever you choose, I'd like to see you learning about simplifying. Look at Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist to get a feel for what words are simple. I'm not saying you need to memorize the page, just be familiar with it. Also read Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages to learn more about making text simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

pedophilia

I changed my mind. I at least tried to fix the article. Do you feel its simplified and shortened enough?--FDR (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rowland Evans

In my article about journalist Rowland Evans of the Chicago Sun Times and the Cable News Network, I wanted to add a picture of him, I tried but I was not able to. How do I upload a photo? --FDR (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Puberty

The section about cultures seems kind of off topic to me in the puberty article. Should it be removed? Another user has complained on the talk page that the article is becoming a novel(that's not what he literally said,I mean he felt it was to long). --FDR (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC) He said, "This page suddenly jumped from 2,000 bytes to 47,000 bytes and has never recovered. It is really too long and too complicated. I have trimmed it a bit, but it still has too much that is tangential. Of course, the subject is everlastingly fascinating to young people, so it has a big readership..." He was Macdonald-ross.--FDR (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the cultural stuff. It seemed more like it would belong in an anthropological study to me, not helpful to a puberty article. --FDR (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. It seemed to me like it would belong in an article about coming-of-age observances. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Understood, and I apologize about all that. I won't do that again. DisneyGuy7456 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize of that article I created, Bill the Lizard, I won't create articles like that again. Sorry. DisneyGuy7456 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bare URLS

The bare urls in Michael Smerconish have been abolished. That was me who took down the point about bare urls. Its not needed anymore, I think.--FDR (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's still one, but most of them are better now. You could take the next step and use the standard citation templates -- that would make them even better. Those templates give a way to provide all the different pieces of information that make good references.

By the way, can you go back and flesh out some of the other articles you've created? The last time I looked, some of them were single sentences and they needed categories and some more basic information. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Statutory rape

Why does statutory rape need its own article? Isn't that just another way of phrasing the age of consent? I also don't agree with the statement that sexual maturity is relevant to statutory rape laws. They base it on mathematical age. For example, in France the legal age of sexual consent is 15 or older. So a person is considered a consenting adult by the law after that age, even if they never hit puberty, which would only happen in rare cases.--FDR (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

They are related, but separate topics. Age of consent is an age. Statutory rape is an act. A person can be below the age of consent without having sex. Statutory rape can apply to incompetent adults as well as minors, although that aspect is not covered in our article. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

But it would relate to mental competency, not puberty, so I think the phrase sexual maturity should be taken out, because that usually means puberty. I can only think of two states where puberty is a factor in the law, the Mexican state of Nayarit and Russia. --FDR (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I took age of consent out of the statutory rape article, and replaced it with, "under the legal age for sexual activity", and a link to the age of consent, because I think age of consent is an unusual term, that most readers here wouldn't understand without explanation. It still links to the age of consent article. --99.1.97.0 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

To get a barnstar, what do Simple editors do? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Any editor can give a barnstar to any other editor. They are given when one editor wants to tell another editor they've done a good job, or maybe they just want to encourage them. It's not an official thing. You can read more about them at Wikipedia:Barnstars. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Maturity onset diabetes of the young

I need to know whether the article has complex words and other problems with the article. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

the word type in type 2 diabetes

For what reason was the word type lowered to lowercase instead of capital letter at the word's beginning (in other words Type)? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Most diseases are spelled with all-lower case, unless one of the following is true:

1. their name includes a proper noun, such as Parkinson's disease (which was named after a person with the surname "Parkinson")
2. the name of the disease is at the beginning of a sentence (for example, "Type 2 diabetes is a serious disease.")

In the article where I changed it, neither of those was true, so it's spelled with all lower-case. There might be exceptions, but this is the general rule. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's odd that you'd ask that, September 1988, considering when you created the type 2 article you used the lower caps... Only (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Beppu

Hi!

Kindly let me know how an article with no wikilinks can be beter then an article with wikilinks? Abigor (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Because you overlinked it. You've done that with a few articles. Please be a little more conservative with the number of links you add and what you link. Some specific notes:

• You added links to "8" and "million". Numbers do not need to be linked. Besides that, any article here with just a number in the title is an article about a year, not about the number.
• In Power Rangers Ninja Storm, you linked [[eleven]]th [[season]]. As for the first word, see above. As for the second, the article season is about the seasons of the year, not season of television programs. Please be sure any links you add link to the correct place.
• In the same article, you linked [[February]] [[2003]]. Please don't link dates, months, or years in regular articles.

I imagine I would find more examples if I looked, but I think this is enough of a list. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

is the article ready

Is "Maturity onset diabetes of the young" ready for moving back to mainspace? Angela Maureen (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Answered on the article talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

heart attack vs myocardial infarction

For what particular reason was heart attack changed back to myocardial infarction? I wanna know why. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed it back because I disagreed with the change and felt it needed wider discussion. The reason I disagree is that "heart attack" is not a precise term, and it is used casually and incorrectly for different things. It's better for the article to use the precise term. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Banu Hilal

Here is a perfect example of what we were just talking about on my talk page. The article was simplified, wikified, and well sourced with one particular source style. The original author came back and overwrote it with complex text from the enwiki article, changed the source style and has used what I think are questionable sources. The first one I checked failed verification. Two others were copied and pasted from other enwiki articles that supposedly verified other information. The problem is, two of those sources are unavailable for verification—unlike the sources that were overwritten. You said you hoped this wasn't a trend. If it isn't a trend it is happening more than it used to. The sentences were shortened, somewhat, but the complexity of the concepts discussed is far from simple. I'm tempted to simply revert back to what was there on the 24th of February and explain to the editor all the problems this caused. So far I've only tagged it complex and marked one source as failed. Any thoughts before I go ahead with fixing the article? User:Rus793 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless you want to simplify it, I would revert it for adding unsimplified text from enwiki. As for the other issues:

• I don't think changing the source style is a problem, as long as it's consistent throughout the article.
• I'm not sure what you mean by sources being unavailable for verification. Do you mean the books? As long as they are valid sources, they do not have to be websites we can click on and see right away.
• Discussing complex concepts is not a problem. Although we use simple language, we do not have to stick to simple topics. That is stated in the guideline Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages.

Those are my thoughts. Questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No questions, I think we're in agreement. One point however, you mentioned changing source styles is not a problem. Actually, it is. At en:Wikipedia:Citing sources, under 'To be avoided' it says: " Switching between major citation styles… between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another". Also, an article's established citation style should not be changed based on personal preference, etc. A citation style is established by the first major contributor to add citations. I was using the Chicago style and the sources copied from other articles was in the APA style. This precedent has cited here before by editors and admins. I'm not saying which style is better, I've used all the major styles. But the point has been made here before that changing styles, once a style has been established, is to be avoided. Articles with a hodgepodge of styles can be changed to a single style by an editor.

And just to clarify, when I said sources were unavailable for verification I only meant that they couldn't be easily checked. I know it's not a requirement, but hard-to-verify sources have been used many times at enwiki as dummy sources because some editors think no one will check. When I find sources that are failing verification and there are others that can't be checked—just saying—it's suspicious. Thanks for the input. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Marie McDonald erased

My article, Marie McDonald, was erased as not being notable. It didn't have to be erased. I am embarrassed. Could anyone restore the article so it can become more notable? Why was the article erased as not notable? Angela Maureen (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it didn't have any information saying why McDonald was notable. I will restore it to your userspace so you can work on it. To show notability, you could include something about the major movies she was in, and something about her alleged kidnapping. Please also include references.

Please try not to be embarrassed when things like this happen. After you create an article, it isn't yours, so anything that happens to it is not a reflection on you. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I can definitely add whatever movies she was in. And references will be certainly included. Angela Maureen (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, go ahead. I already moved it to your userspace. Just be sure that the movies are notable ones, or they won't help show that the actress is notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the movies and the alleged kidnapping. Also, the references are included. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Some comments:

• The first reference comes after the statement that McDonald was in many movies and television programs. However, the reference doesn't say anything about how many movies she was in, and it says nothing at all about television programs. Because of that, that reference isn't valid there. This is the kind of thing I was talking about here. When you use a reference, you must use it appropriately. You can't put a reference in an article just to have one there: it has to have the information in it that it's being used for. Please let me know if this isn't clear, because it's very important.
• You didn't add much about the supposed kidnapping. ("Kidnapping" is a simpler word than "abduction".) How about telling more about it? It's kind of an interesting story.
• You added Category:People who committed suicide to the article. However, the sources I see say that in the end, her death was ruled accidental. Did you see something that said otherwise?

--Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the invalid reference. Made the article more simpler. Something else? Angela Maureen (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

More information about the supposed kidnapping would be good. Just saying she claimed she was kidnapped doesn't tell us much. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added more info about the supposed kidnapping. Something else? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The info you added was good. Some comments:

• The statement about her claiming to have been kidnapped should be later in the paragraph, so that the things are described in the order that they happened. The way it's written, it sounds like her claim wasn't necessarily related to the other things in the paragraph.
• "Abrasion" is a complex word.
• The two paragraphs related to the kidnapping should probably be combined into one paragraph.
• The article should say who Harry Karl was. Otherwise, why would the reader care what he thought?

--Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've combined the kidnap paragraphs and added that Harry Karl was her husband. I also changed abrasion to injuries. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Good work! I made some small changes and moved it to articlespace. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

female editors

I looked at the message, and it says fewer than twenty percent of Wikipedia or Wikimedia editors are women. I'm a woman, and proud to edit English and Simple English. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Angela, did you want a comment from me about this? I'm not sure why you posted it on my talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your great work and dedication towards the project! Keep up the excellent work! --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 08:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Caliburn! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for being one of the most polite admins I encountered in all my years in the Wikipedia project. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure everyone would agree with you, Magioladitis (not even me sometimes!), but thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing of RfD

I saw your note about the closing for Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Template:Link_GA. I can close it, but do not have a lot of time to clean up those links today. If I close it would you take care of that clean up or forward it to the Dexbot operator? -- Enfcer (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be glad to do that. I'll contact the Dexbot operator. I don't know how quickly he/she will respond, but I think that's the best way for us to go for the initial removal. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have closed it as deleted, and I agree bot cleanup is probably the best. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Dveri-kiev blocked user spam.--Musamies (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

no children vs no one

No Children 17 and Under was changed to No One 17 and Under. Why is that? Furthermore, don't certain companies avoid the MPAA altogether for fear their movies may receive an NC-17? Angela Maureen (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The official MPAA definition of that rating is "no one 17 and under admitted". You can see that on the website, which I linked in the other-websites section. According to the enwiki article, here, the description used to be "No Children Under 17 Admitted", but it was changed.

As for your second question, it's not exactly a question of "avoiding" the MPAA. Films do not have to be rated -- the rating system is voluntary. I also don't think there are companies who routinely leave all their films unrated (except maybe companies who make "adult" films). In some cases, filmmakers choose not to have an individual film rated, rather than get NC-17 ratings. That is mentioned in the article.

Does that answer your questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lila Downs

I see that more of these redirects have been reverted. Palomo del Comalito, the single, for example has several international chart source citations at enwiki—all of which failed verification. After a search showing nothing for chart information, I reverted the reversion again. Then you moved Balas y Chocolate, which still does not show notability. In addition this seems to be rewarding negative behavior by an apparent whack-a-mole IP user. How did we get from the submitting editor having to show notability, to editors and patrollers here having to research each one to show notability for them? Before, it was just a reasonable search was sufficient. With a handful or two of active editors, doing it this way is going to be hard to keep up with. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we were at a place where the person creating an article had to show notability. We should have been, but it was never well enforced as far as I could see. Another part of this issue is that even reliable sources don't necessarily show notability. Mention in a reliable source that is basically a catalog of something or other can give us helpful info (such as a track listing or a cast list), but doesn't mean the thing is notable. Also, mention in a reliable source might not show notability if the mention is casual.

I have no objection to the pages I moved being changed back to redirects. I was renaming the one we do have notability for, and I thought they should be consistent.

If I haven't addressed all your points, let me know.--Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't catch on to the scope of the activity right away. There were three of us who had redirects reverted without discussion by five different IPs. These were User talk:189.137.192.30, User talk:189.137.209.99, User talk:189.225.233.125, User talk:189.242.153.222, User talk:189.242.173.255. The warnings have now been brought up to date. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A sixth IP address has been used (and warned): User talk:189.242.179.25. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A seventh IP address has been used & warned: User talk:189.179.191.88 User:Rus793 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to keep telling me each time this happens. The activity hasn't been frequent enough to protect the page. It might help to try explaining the actual issue (no indication of notability) instead of leaving the generic warning message for vandalism. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A problem

I have problem with this article, the Vlad III the Impaler. I can't find everything that is in the article in sources, and some links doesn't work, so I can't check. I was trying now to simplify it now for some time, but it is still way to long and difficult to read. There are weird dots between the references, too. Tell me please what to do. --Windell (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about those dots between the references. They are from a problem with the {{cite book}} template. Some people have tried to fix it, but haven't figured it out yet. Those items should have bullets, by the way.

If a link for a reference doesn't work, you can put a {{dead link}} template on it. If you need a source for something that doesn't have one, you can look at the English Wikipedia article for ideas.

As far as simplifying, are you asking for ideas on how you can simplify more, or are you asking me to do some simplifying? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was mainly asking what to do with the article, because I can't find the information in the article in the references. When I started editing it I was mostly interested in trying to reduce the amount of complicated expressions. Now I was thinking editing it a bit more seriously, because since than I grown up a bit, but now realize I can't check the information. This I added today. http://dracula.cc/vlad_iii_dracula/ --Windell (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of references in the English Wikipedia article. You could probably find something helpful there. The article does need more simplifying, but it's simpler than a lot of articles we have. It's also longer than most of our articles, but that's not a problem as long as the language is simple enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I (Kendrick Lamar song)

why did you redirect the song to the artist?, that's dumb--Yermoland (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Yermoland

Each article here needs to show that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. The article didn't do that. I could have asked for the article to be deleted instead, but we have been redirecting such articles. You might like to read WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information on how to show notability. Feel free to ask any questions you have about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

autism related matters

Whenever I see articles about autism, I keep seeing notes saying that autism is four or five times more common in boys than girls. I also keep seeing articles saying that many autistics have intellectual disability. Please clarify. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no special knowledge in that area, so I don't know how I would clarify it. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename

Hom ican rename of my article?-Minister of Welfare ^CHAT 01:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You rename it by moving it. You should see a "move" tab at the top of the page. Click on that, and it will give you a place to fill in 1) the new name and 2) the reason for the move/rename. Which article do you want to rename? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This article Dagon_(movie).Minister of Welfare ^CHAT 03:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

tropical storms in Iowa

Is it possible for tropical cyclones to reach Iowa where I currently reside? I wonder if a tropical cyclone may hit Iowa. Angela Maureen (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, and I'm not sure why you're asking me. You might ask some of the editors who edit the related pages a lot. They might be more familiar with this. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please

Can you sort this out? I wanted to remove butthole - but it looks like I removed more... https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=5065638&oldid=5065636 --Windell (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You're OK. The other text you removed was added by the vandal after being removed. It's still there in the article, just in one line (as it should be) instead of separate lines. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? Thanks. It was difficult to guess what happened, all text flying around like that. --Windell (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. But I probably stop now. I will not edit here more, I am no good. --Windell (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

paragraph on Sexting removed

Hey Auntof6: I noticed that a third paragraph was removed. For what particular reason was that paragraph removed? Angela Maureen (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph was about possible legal consequences of sexting, but didn't explain under what circumstances those consequences could happen. It made it sound as though sexting is illegal, which it's not. It can be used to do some illegal things, but sexting itself is not illegal. --Auntof6 (talk)

Sensitive subjects

I was considering removing the images all throughout the week but holded off because it was on topic, and I didn't know what the regular active users would think (cross-wiki of course). DivineAlpha (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought about it a while, too. Wikipedia is not censored, so on-topic images are appropriate. However, we had a spate of images added to various sexuality topics by different-but-similar IPs, and the images were a bit more graphic than they needed to be. I didn't remove all of them. Nudity is fine, prurience is not. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

removing picture on threesome

An image of three people having sex was removed on the page threesome. What is the reason? And what is prurience? Angela Maureen (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The image wasn't necessary to explain the topic. We had a lot of unneeded images added to articles on various sexual topics around the same time. I removed some of them as part of a pattern. Something that is prurient is designed to bring out sexual desire. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

John Stockton page

Thank you for tweaking some things after my recent edit of the John Stockton article to make it much more readable and simple for other people to understand. I can't always find just the right words and it reads much better now. I did make one minor change, and I thought I should let you know. I changed "both of those games" to "both of those series", due to the concept that each NBA Finals consists of from four to seven games, rather than just one game for each NBA Finals.

I don't know if people who are learning English will understand the word "series" sufficiently, but it was the best word I could come up with. It seems like you have a great ability to use English in a way that beginning speakers can easily understand things. If you can think of a word that fits better than "series", please let me know or feel free to make the change yourself. Sorry this is long, but again, thank you. Also, thank you very much for having the courage to stand up when you think a picture is pushing the boundaries. 67.186.207.83 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

what is this vandalism you speak of?

sentence removed from Marilyn Horne

One of the sentences in 'Marilyn Horne was called complex and taken out. How was it complex? Angela Maureen (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The terms "large sound", "beauty of tone" and "breath support" are complex. They are technical terms that wouldn't mean anything to people with limited English skills.

By the way, when you leave a message like this, please link the article. You're asking someone to check something in the article, so it's a courtesy to make it easy for the person to get to the article. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

image changed on Lana Wood

An image was changed on Lana Wood. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The new image is more recent and is a better photo. Usually, more recent images are preferred. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi, Auntof6. You probably noticed that I started doing some NPP after that discussion the other day. I'm certainly adding WD links where appropriate, and in one case (Marissa Meyer/Mayer), I added a disambiguation hatnote. Mostly, though, I'm not fussing with a lot of cleanup tags, because these seem to be supervised class projects. Before I do too much more patrolling: is that appropriate? I want to serve the project appropriately, but I'm not going to have time for tons of cleanup tags, especially for class projects. TY. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

By WD links, do you mean Wikidata interlanguage links? Those are good to add. If you're ever interested, there's a special page that lists pages that aren't connected in Wikidata: Special:UnconnectedPages. Just make sure that the links are only to exact matches. Not everything will have an exact match. By the way, I noticed that some language labels you added were removed. Appatently they don't need separate labels for all the different varieties of English.

As for patrolling, I was leaving the class project pages unpatrolled. Even if they're from supervised class projects, the teachers don't always know everything that should be done, either. If you mark a page patrolled, you're saying either that it's OK the way it is or that it has been tagged for any issues it has. If you don't have time to either fix the issues or tag the article (which can be done very quickly with Twinkle), then you don't have to patrol it. Leaving those articles unpatrolled gave us a way to find them. Finding some of them will be difficult now if the class project banners get removed. It's probably good not to tag the class project articles while they're being worked on, but there's also no need to patrol them. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Actually, the vast majority of them were really fine and appropriate to be patrolled by any standard, perhaps except for a {{stub}} tag, and in some cases, not even that. But I take your point.

For Wikidata language links, if the match is not exact, it's usually not that hard to figure out what the right match should be. But I will certainly be careful about that.

As for those labels in Wikidata, they must have changed the rules. One used to have to do that kind of thing explicitly. (Maybe article names now automatically populate the labels?) StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On the interlanguage links, I'm not sure what you mean by figuring out what the match should be. Sometimes there just is no match. Matches shouldn't be forced. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, certainly not. But if there is one or more potential match in enwiki, or even in a couple of others where I have some mastery of the language (like frwiki or hewiki), I can often figure out which one is supposed to be the match by comparing facts. Not always. I don't force. But often. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

why is rare a complex word

For what reason is the word rare regarded as complex? And moreover, there are words that are regarded as complex, except I don't know until afterward. Please tell me. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For purposes of this Wikipedia, any word that isn't on Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist is considered complex. You should bookmark that page and refer to it often. Strictly speaking, we should be using Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist, which has even fewer words, but we stretch and use the longer list. If you're asking why rare isn't on the list, I don't know why Charles Kay Ogden chose the words he did. If I had to guess, I would think it's because there are more-basic words that can be used to get across the idea of being rare.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second question. Can you explain further? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

While editing and adding pages, I bump into certain words I didn't know were complex until after you simplify. The word certain on Death Row Records is one example. I'm learning disabled and autistic, and I'm creating articles on regular basis. I'm trying to stay simple as possible. I get embarrassed when articles I create are erased from Simple English. Angela Maureen (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, just an easier way to check to see if a word is at least on the Basic English 850 list. Keep a tab in your browser open to Wiktionary while you're working. Wiktionary identifies which words are in the Basic 850 in the upper left of the screen, either beside or under the word you're looking up. This way users can know right away regarding a word like 'rare'. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It takes experience, a feel for language, and/or checking the lists to know which words are simple. For our purposes, simple doesn't mean easy. Creating simple text can actually be very hard. I know about your disabilities, but as far as I'm concerned, we can't let that affect the quality of work here. Our focus needs to be on our target audience, the people with limited English ability who read here. If you want to avoid having articles you create being deleted, you could create them in your userspace and have someone check them before you put them as regular articles. I'd much rather do that than correct them after they're in mainspace.

By the way, some of the word changes I make aren't for simplicity, they're for tone. The articles here should read like encyclopedia articles, not other kinds of writing (such as magazine or newspaper articles, etc.) It can be hard to strike a balance between that and the need to be simple.--Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Auntof6. I thought we allowed words on the VOA Basic English list. Rare is on that list. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We can use them, but I think Angela is still getting used to the idea of using the lists at all, and I'm trying to keep it simple for her. Besides that, rare has multiple meanings and it's hard to know which meaning(s) are considered simple. (Some words on the lists are considered simple only for some of their meanings, but we don't have any information on which meanings those are.) In this case, there was a simpler way to say that the bird was rare. When that's the case, it's good to use the simpler wording even if a word is on one of the lists. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Auto-Block

My account was compromised during my absence - please enable an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki projects. Thanks for collaborating. --BScMScMD (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I see this was taken care of by Barras. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Intermediate System to Intermediate System

I added a ref to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System page. Should I remove the no source note or should I let you remove that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.239.69 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You can remove it. Thanks for taking care of it! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Accomplished, and after reading my talk page I now know how to sign me notes... Very cool, thanks for mentoring me. 108.31.239.69 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you ...

		The Simple Barnstar
		I should have done this long ago! StevenJ81 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven! I do try, but there's so much simplifying needed, sometimes it starts to feel hopeless. It's nice to know my efforts are appreciated! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

creating new article

I'm creating a new article. I put this within my user space due to uncertainty about whether the article may be complex or not. Can you review the article? Angela Maureen (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be glad to do that. Are you talking about User:September 1988/Conversion therapy? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Angela Maureen (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at it either tonight or tomorrow. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

re write

Thanks for your massage,I have been rewrote my ArticleZahed Gilani with simplification and correction . I wish it is accepted right now. With my regards.Bassammahdi (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bassammahdi. You did some good work there. It does still need some copy editing, though. If you want, I could do some work on it, then you could look at what I did and ask any questions you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

go a head

I am appreciate if you edit Zahed Gilani article to be match simple English standards.with my regards.Bassammahdi (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Subsidiary alliance...

Hello Auntof6, What I did this afternoon was more or less copy paste from enwp (to avert the copyvio bit). For myswelf, I am not british, did not study histotry, and have only the limited grasp the EnWP article provides. In other words, if you feel capable and ocpetent to simplify further / elaborat on the subject, please do. --Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

2Bobule and WP:N

Need advice. Was doing NPP and ran across this. It has short articles in enwiki, as well as Czech and Polish. On enwiki, I'm usually willing to give something like this the benefit of the doubt, because in many respects enwiki is the Wikipedia of global record, even for non-English speakers. But here? Is something like this notable enough for us? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The requirements for notability are the same here and on enwiki. I definitely wouldn't overlook that on enwiki just so that it has an article on everything. Articles need to show notability of their subject. That's usually done with reliable sources, which this article doesn't have. This movie may be notable, but that is neither claimed (in the text) nor shown (with supporting references) in the article. For some types of things, that would get an article quickly deleted, but that QD option doesn't apply to movies. So my answer to your question is that I can't tell from the article whether the movie is notable enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I started to write an answer. It was getting long and wordy. And more to the point, it wasn't really germane to this particular article, because nothing in the article proves notability (so far) anyway. So I decided not to clog up your talk page with it. Still, I'd be interested in your opinion. So look here, and if you have an opinion (besides that it isn't finished yet), let me know there, here, or wherever. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I might need help

Could you help me? Before I put "conversion therapy" in mainspace, I'm gonna need help simplifying the rest of this page. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating accounts

You just have to use Special:CreateAccount and create the accounts for them while logged in as yourself. As an admin you should already have the ability to create unlimited accounts from the same IP with names that are similar. You would need something to call the accounts and a contact for the teacher or students so the passwords can get to them. I haven't done it myself but I believe that is how its done. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Djsasso. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

request

I was edited my article Zahed Gilani , I still wait your to publish this article, if it is still want some edit please do it.Bassammahdi (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sannse

I feel I need to talk to you about something. Can you ask Sannse on the English Wikipedia if she can unblock my account on Wikia? Because I have lots of important things to do on there. -- 70.190.228.32 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I can't help you with this. This is Simple English Wikipedia. We are a separate Wikipedia from English Wikipedia. Also, Wikia is a completely different website from any of the Wikipedias. I don't even know the procedures there. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to go to discuss issues on Wikia. Please see wikia:c:Special:Contact --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

See also this. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. But after I send them a message on Contact, when do they respond? -- 70.190.228.32 (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't know that. You should ask someone at Wikia. A Wikipedia talk page is not the place to discuss this. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

But I cannot ask them at Wikia, my account is blocked there for 3 months. This is very important. -- 70.190.228.32 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It may be important, but this is not the place to ask. Wikia is not Wikipedia. In any case, I can't help because I'm not familiar with Wikia, so please stop discussing it on my talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I do not know how or when they respond since I have contacted them about it like about a few times already. I am getting a little stressed. -- 70.190.228.32 (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please follow GeorgeBarnick's advice above and stop posting here. This is a different group entirely. We can't help you. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RFD closure

Hi Aunt of Six, I have closed the RFD on category Afro-american female porn stars, to be merged into American porn stars. I am not sure now how to clean up or delete the category. Is this something you can do?--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'll just "un-diffuse" (for lack of a better word) to the parent categories -- that would mean, for each entry, removing the category that we discussed and adding each of that category's parents to each item. At times like this, it would be nice if we had something like Commons' cat-a-lot tool! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Princess of Lamballe

Hiiiiiiiiiiii. Could you move the User: bit from the title of the above page at all? It refuses to let me do it. :/. Simplegoose (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, since it wasn't simplified yet (the reason for which it was moved to userspace before), I have moved it back to userspace. The main problem is that there are compound sentences. You might want to read Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages for help with this. Let me know if you have any questions about it. --Auntof6 (talk)

Never mind -- I see that Rus simplified the mainspace copy, so I deleted the userspace copy. You still might want to read that page, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just improving the article. I looked at it several times over the past few days and it always had User: in the name. I just finally changed it and went ahead and worked on the article to get it off the list. Hope it didn't cause a problem. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I might need help

How could I put much better info on Pantaleo? Furthermore, what are other areas I can simplify? I need help. Angela Maureen (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Flood

You've flooded RC with all those deletions. :P Forget the flood flag? Eurodyne (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? When I look at RC, the deletions are all grouped and I have to click an arrow to see them all. I also didn't think the flood flag affected display of deletes, but I'll test that. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, it looks like the deletions are grouped for me because I checked the "Better new changes (JavaScript)" option under "New changes" in my preferences. I also see that a delete didn't show up when I gave myself the flood flag. So, sorry for the flood, and I'll keep that in mind in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nana Shineflug

Hi, Auntof6. I came across this on New Page Patrol today. (You did some category work on it.) I cleaned up references, leaving four distinct references: a bio from the dance troupe she founded, an obituary from the Chicago Tribune—a real article, not a placed notice—a similar article from the campus newspaper of the school where she was both a student and teacher, and an article in the Tribune on a dance tribute that was held a few months after her death.

I take her to be kind of borderline on notability, and wonder what you think. Here's why:

On a quick further review, I came up with an obituary from the Chicago Sun-Times—different paper, same city. I also came up with a very brief mention on the website of Dance magazine, which mostly just points one to the Tribune's obit. I also saw quite a few mentions in the dance blogosphere, none of which is probably technically a reliable source in its own right, but the accumulation of which tells me something, anyway.

So at the end of the day, she seems to be notable in her world (modern dance). She's notable among her school's faculty and alumnae, and in her home city. But I'm not finding much general notice apart from that. (There's no article in enwiki, interestingly enough.) So: is she notable enough for us?

Any thoughts? I've marked the page patrolled, so depending on your advice, I'll leave it at that, or put it up for RfD. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your concern. I also think it's a borderline case, but I think I'd leave it. There is certainly room to say more about what makes her notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

suffers vs has

The word suffers was changed to has in one article that I created. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a simpler word. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Disney Channel shows

Do you think this category could be included in more pages? It's only included in 10. Also, it has interwiki links on it: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Disney_Channel_shows&diff=5139556&oldid=4872389. 2602:306:CD0A:8DD0:B059:433E:1452:6E30 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I took the interwiki links off, because it's in Wikidata. If we have more articles about Disney Channel shows, we can certainly add the category to them. The "popcat" tag isn't needed, though. We usually use that for categories that have fewer than 3 entries when we want to try to populate them instead of deleting them. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

citations for BLP articles

Hey Auntof6: I was recently thinking of what you and Osiris had mentioned earlier. I added citations to several BLP articles. As you said, all articles about people need references. That's the reason I added some refs to many BLP pages recently. Angela Maureen (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, we really need that! I try to remember to take care of maintenance issues from time to time, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

embarrassed again

I was offended and embarrassed that some of the movie articles were tagged for notability despite my hard work. These are movies that were released in the past! Grumpy Old Men and Grumpier Old Men are quite notable. Somehow it's hard to prove notability on Simple. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended and embarrassed, but articles you write have to meet the requirements for articles here. One of the requirements is showing notability. We're currently becoming stricter about that, which I know might be frustrating.

Keep in mind that there's a difference between being notable and showing notability. For example if you wrote an article about the current President of the United States and all it said was "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii", that wouldn't show notability. We all know that he is notable, but that sentence doesn't show it. Also keep in mind that when we talk about notability, it's notability for Wikipedia purposes, according to Wikipedia's definition of notability.

I did find it strange that you would create movie articles without indicating notability so soon after I wrote on your talk page that you needed to start indicating it. Did you understand what I wrote on your talk page? I think I explained some ways to indicate notability.

As far as notability of movies, it doesn't matter when a movie was released. There has to be something showing notability. That's harder to show with movies that haven't been released, because many of the things that show notability of movies don't happen until after release. The guideline on notability for movies explains what shows that a movie is notable, whether or not it has already been released. Please, please read that guideline. After you read it, you can ask whoever you like to explain anything you don't understand. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Anne Braden

The Anne Braden article that I created somehow did not show notability. Is that why it was erased? Because I'm getting really angry watching my articles get deleted! Angela Maureen (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was because of not showing notability. You should be able to see the reason for deletion in the deletion log and in Special:RecentChanges.

Angela, if you're angry about the articles you write being deleted or tagged, then write articles that meet the requirements for notability, simplicity, and other things. We can't make exceptions for you just because you get upset. Articles here need to be accurate, well-written, in simple language, and meet the various requirements like showing notability. Personally, I'm angry that other editors have to spend so much time checking the articles you write and making them meet requirements.

I'm pretty much out of ideas on how to help you write here. The only other idea I have is to require you to get your work reviewed before creating articles. I've tried for a long time not to make that a restriction, but I don't know what else to do. If you can think of anything that would help you write better articles, please let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I could work on Anne Braden and try to improve the article to show its notability. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've restored it to your userspace. It's at User:September 1988/Anne Braden --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @September 1988: Angela, may I make a suggestion? When you start writing an article, the first sentence will tell us what the article is about. If that sentence doesn't already say why the subject is notable, then make sure that the second sentence you write does say why the subject is notable. Important: That sentence doesn't have to prove the notability yet. That sentence only has to say why (reason) the subject is notable. Then go on from there.

You will eventually have to prove the notability. But if you start with those two sentences, you have a better chance of getting past quick deletions. And that will give you some additional time to work on the article.

You might be able to get some information on Anne Braden at en:Anne Braden. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Auntof6, I made some improvements to the page. Something else? Angela Maureen (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The information you added was good, but it's directly copied from enwiki and needs to be simplified. You also left out the references in the text you copied. Why would you do that when you know refetences are needed? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added some questions on User talk:September 1988/Anne Braden. It is under the Improvement section. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

movie articles

Hey Auntof6, I realized something: including information on plot, the full cast, some references, etc. might improve the notability of the movie article. If I included that kind of information, maybe the articles I create wouldn't get tagged for notability. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Information on plot and cast should definitely be there. (If you include the entire cast, it's better to put it in a list instead if in a paragraph.) However, plot and cast information wouldn't show notability even if it had references. The things that show notability are described in the notability guideline on movies. Whatever information you include that shows notability should have a reference to a reliable source. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am being really brave here or have either lost my mind. Please accept this comment in the kind light in which it is meant. (Commenting on Simple is similar to approaching Arbcom to me). If the criteria is getting stricter for movies here and the notability guideline on movies keeps getting linked as where to get information for possibly simple readers; I just read that EnWiki page and it is not simple. Maybe we need our own guideline? I will say as I have to another admin: please forgive my wordiness. I have a neurological quirk and it is almost impossible to pare down my sentences to text message format. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 12:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The criteria are not getting stricter. What is getting stricter is our enforcement of the guideline.

As for the guideline being on enwiki and not in simple language, you have a good point that it may be hard for Simple English readers to understand. That is true of many policies and guidelines that have not been translated for this wiki. We could translate this guideline. However, since it is our editors, not our readers, who need to understand it, and many if not most of our editors have no trouble with standard English, having simple versions of all the various policies and guidelines hasn't been a priority. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I suppose it could be requested by a show of hands of who is actually referring to it and if they comprehend. I could probably create the guideline, but I would be unhappy with the inevitable criticism. So I am just going to create another cat article. Do not worry. He is quite notable and will be written to support this. All the best in all sincerity. Fylbecatulous talk 15:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Auntof6, if you want to import that guideline to my user space, I'll take a crack at it. (I've never tried to obtain use of the Importer flag, but think in a case like this having all the old history intact would be important.) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, User:StevenJ81. It's at User:StevenJ81/Wikipedia:Notability (movies). Please be sure that you just simplify and not change the content, unless we discuss. Note, though, that not all the history is there. It takes too long to import all the history when there's a lot. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. It's going to be minimum a week to get to this and then do it, so please be patient, everyone. StevenJ81 (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no hurry, and I'm sure several folks would want to check it before we make it official anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fer sure. You think I'm gonna post a guideline in Wikipedia space without lots of endorsement? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner

So Bruce Jenner is now officialy a woman and her name in Caitlyn Jenner and she prefers female pronouns. I'm gonna need some help fixing the article. Can you help me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I would guess that we should change all the pronouns, even where talking about things that happened before he announced his gender identity. That's what has been done on enwiki. Other notes:

• She is no longer a stepparent to the Kardashians because she and Kris divorced. We could reword this to just say that she was married to Kris Jenner (thereby avoiding the stepfather/stepmother issue), or we could just remove that sentence from the intro.
• The text added about the June 1 announcement needs simplifying.

I don't have time right now to look at it in more depth, but I can get back to it later today. Is there something specific you want me to look at? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It goes without saying (but I'm saying it anyway!) that whichever name ends up being the name of the article, there will need to be a redirect at the other. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A redirect was left behind when the article was moved to the new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Qubool Hai?

Hello, AuntOf6. Were you aware that the article you just QD'd is being discussed at RFD on [[Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Qubool Hai here]]? - Would it therefore not make sense to undo the QD, and wait what the result of the community discussion is? - What if another edito decided he wanted to simplify the article for here? - Just thoughts ofc. --Eptalon (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that. I will restore the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Checklist, punch list or decision tree

I have been toying with an idea: a checklist to help determine notability. A checklist, punchlist, decision tree; something to help editors who want to better understand the notability guidelines. I was wondering if you might want to help with this. I already borrowed a couple of your ideas. What I have so far is a rough list Borrowing from ideas below, this is what we have:
Factors relevant to notability:

1. An article clearly claims notability
2. Regardless of (1), the subject actually is notable (independent check)
3. The article proves notability with reliable source citations

Factors that are not relevant:

A. Unreliable or false source citations

B. The fact an article exists on other Wikipedias

C. Personal opinion (e.g. I like this subject)

Determination

• An article should not be QD's or Rfd'd if it can be fixed. See: en:WP:BEFORE
• For QD, factor 1 is the primary consideration. An article that does not claim notability may be QD:A4
  • If an article does not claim notability but an editor determines it is notable, the editor's responsibility is to make a claim of notability.
• For RfD, factor 1 and 3 are relevant. Article claims notability but does not prove notability is not notable.
• If there is any uncertainty whether to QD or RfD, it should go to Rfd

---

I don't know where to use this just yet. But I think it could be helpful. Could you add anything to this? Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Great idea. A couple of thoughts/questions:

• If an article claims notability, but only through not-relevant factor C, has it in fact claimed notability? (I ask this way because a claim of notability, along with A or B, is likely to pass QD, at least, as we won't have examined the sources.)
• Concerning #2: sometimes we just don't know. But when we're pretty sure #2 is true (for whatever reason), how much responsibility do we have as reviewers to do something about it to prevent deletion? (Let's say we're talking RfD, not QD.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if an article claims notability through factor C , and says so, then it has claimed notability (e.g. Professor X is the the most learned scholar at Y University. He is the best...). An editor who has one should voice an opinion at the RfD. The more community participation the better. Proving notability through adding source citations would probably go further in some cases than just an opinion. But we want good pages here and sometimes a page is simply not worth saving. If it has more than one problem and is poorly titled, a better approach might be to let it be deleted, then recreate a better page in its place. Userfication is another alternative. An RfD is usually looking at the page as written, not the subject. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If its notable it should never be deleted. If you know an article is obviously notable and it doesn't make a claim that it is, your first responsibility is to make it so it does. An article should not be Rfd'd or QD'd if it can be fixed. That is part of en:WP:BEFORE. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Re #2: OK.

Re #1: I can see that. But "Professor X is the most learned scholar at Y University" is at least something one can sink one's teeth into as a claim. If the only thing it says is "He's a really cool professor," is that enough? The language at enwiki is "credible claim," and one way or the other "Professor X is the most learned scholar at Y University" is a credible claim. "He's a really cool professor" probably isn't, in my view...but is there any way to draw an actual line? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is that hard to decide if it has crossed the line to making a credible claim then Rfd is the way to go. QD is only for slam dunk home run obvious deletion. If there is any ambiguity it has to go to Rfd. That is what is getting lost in all these discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. OK. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and it seems we have another decision rule (see above). Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So we're not cluttering up Aunt's talk page, I set up a sandbox at: User talk:Rus793/How to determine if a page is notable. We can continue there. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops.

I knew something didn't look quite right. Didn't mean to delete that. TY StevenJ81 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anne Braden ready for main space?

Hello Auntof6,

I do think that the Anne Braden article, which now lives in September 1988's userspace, is ready to be moved to mainspace. The biggest problems that I see now are those of red-links, and these are independent of the article. In its current form, the article may have some issues, but these can be fixed in article space.

Please move the article, if you think it is ready.

Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

the word surname

Hey Auntof6: Why is the word surname used in Simple and the Regular English Wikipedia articles? Many people who don't edit Wikipedia don't even know that surname even exists. Furthermore, a lot of Wikipedia editors often get confused with the word. Most people use the term last name, not surname. The earlier is more well known, and more people mention it. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's used because it's the accurate term. We have a link for it (although it redirects to family name), so it shouldn't confuse anyone. Surname and last name aren't the same, because sometimes (for example, in many Asian cultures) a person's surname is the first part of their name instead of the last part. See Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong for two well-known examples. Even though this is an English-speaking Wikipedia, and English names usually have the family name last, we are supposed to have a global point of view, so surname or family name is better. From a global point of view, "last name" isn't even meaningful. The fact that people don't know the word (especially people who don't even edit here) isn't a reason for not using it if it's the accurate term. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In some (all?) Spanish cultural settings, it's even in the middle, and can be followed by the mother's family name. Instinctively, I think that family name is really the better way to go for this wiki, in preference to surname. (I suspect "surname" is understandable to most people natively speaking European languages, actually. But I'd potentially be worried about people whose native tongue is non-European.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And then you have Icelandic people, who usually don't use surnames/family names at all, but patronymics and matronymics! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Profanity

May I suggest Semi protecting the Profanity article? It seems to attract quite a lot of vandalism and even well meaning good faith edits from people who don't know what should and shouldn't be in the article. Reguyla (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's warranted at this point. Before today, the last edits wete two weeks ago, so it's not getting frequent edits of any kind. There were two IP editors whose edits were reverted; each edited only within a short period of time and hasn't edited the page again since being reverted. As far as the good faith edits, we wouldn't protect a page for that.

I know it's annoying, but there would need to be a fair amount more actual vandalism before semi-protection would be the answer. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I just thought I would suggest it since it seems to be a recurring problem. Reguyla (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

question: Is what did to Stern Review all OK?

On Stern Review it had a link to en:Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford, and it seems better to have, at least also, a Simple Wikipedia link attempt to Nicholas Stern. I copied what User:Peterdownunder did to Helen Clark. 108.73.115.180 (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The part about filling out the references is fine. As for the link to Lord Stern, if the article on enwiki is called Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford, wouldn't we call it the same thing if we create one here? It's OK for it to be a red link, but it should be what the article would be called if we created one here. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Dear Auntof6, I was wondering if you can add any suggestions on Bernie Sanders for a GA promotion. I'm not going to nominate it right away. This might take time. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Goole

Aunt, thanks for the change to Goole (disambiguation). I really do learn by watching what happens to my changes after. I had no idea we are only supposed to have one blue link per entry. And yes I could have simplified that while I was there. "Found' is one of my pet peeves. No location is 'lost'. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 02:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not everyone here cares as much (or even agrees) about the dab style things, but I like to keep them simple and clean. If you're interested, you can learn more at en:WP:MOSDAB. I agree about "found" -- I take out "found in" and "located in" whenever I can! I've been tutoring adults in English lately, and I keep having to explain to my students that English sometimes throws in extra words that don't affect the meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

4 restoring my entries. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I restored them because the reasons given for deleting them were not valid. They still need work to keep them from being deleted for other reasons. I recommend you improve them before doing any other work. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish you would not warn me. I was only being nice. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just letting you know that the articles might get deleted again. I thought you might want a chance to fix them before that happens. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Iris (plant)

I went new-page patrolling this morning and found this article. I marked it patrolled, because obviously this is notable and in principle deserves to be here. But I have neither the knowledge or time to expand it myself. So perhaps I shouldn't have marked it patrolled, as someone else would have come along and taken a shot. But given that I did, where is the best place to look for help expanding. Simple talk? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple talk is probably a good place. You might also put the {{expand}} template on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Re:User talk:Rus793 #Learn_Sth., I haven't warned the user(s) yet for personal attacks as I'm not sure a warning is warranted. So far it's just insults directed at me over reverting an edit on .net framework. Both IPs use the same broken English/Internet slang and geolocate to the same place. The second message references User:Janagewen (indefinitely blocked) and what "we" did to him or his articles—not sure what that's about. I checked and it's the same language Janagewen used. Is this worth doing a checkuser request to see if it is Janagewen editing here again? Anything you think I should do or you want to do with this? Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Disregard, I'm going to delete the conversation. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Babele

This is not a user talk page, it is a talk page for an article depending on an article that does not exist. Thanks, Rubbish computer (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know what I was thinking! I have deleted the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks. Rubbish computer (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Conatus

As I mentioned User_talk:64.6.124.31#Conatus it's still not on Wiktionary... does anyone usually double check AfDs? -- Mentifisto 21:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no formal check. The deletion doesn't require the item to be in Wiktionary, so there's no reason it has to be checked. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's deleted knowledge then... can it be restored or moved? -- Mentifisto 21:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can be restored. Here is the text that was last in it (with a typo fixed):

Conatus is a word from Latin that describes the drive every living being has to survive, go forward, and better themselves used by the book "Ethics" of Baruch Spinoza. It comes from the philosophy of psychology and metaphysics and is similar to inertia in modern physics.

Can you get what you need from that? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, that typo wasn't even mine... the thing is, I could create it over there but I had already created it here... isn't there a way to move the history too? There must be some efficient way, but I can't remember which... -- Mentifisto 01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean create a Wiktionary entry that has the history from the article here? I don't think that's possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's Special:Export. But, it may need to be restored. Can't this be done before any deletions next time? :-) -- Mentifisto 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It can be done by an admin on Wiktionary but the formatting wouldn't be at all right for that site. It would make more sense just to start from scratch over there. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, I suggest you contact one of the users who are admins both here and on Simple English Wiktionary. Those are User:Barras and User:Pmlineditor. If they choose, they could restore the page long enough to accomplish the import, then re-delete the page. Really, though, I don't think it makes sense to import from Wikipedia to Wiktionary due to the different content and formatting in the entries. However, I leave it up to the admins who have the authority to do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've checked conatus in three relevant dictionaries. It is such a rare word that it probably should not be in wikt, and certainly not in our pages. The sources:

1. Dictionary of Biology (Abercrombie): Not listed, and neither is 'will to live', élan vital, 'life force' or any synonym.
2. Dictionary of Psychology (Reber): not listed, but conation is, with comment "rarely heard today".
3. Dictionary of Philosophy (Runes): it is listed, with Spinoza as the main source. Also listed is élan vital, referencing Bergson.

I don't think we need to pursue this further. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It exists in detail at en:wikt:conatus and in brief at simple:wikt:conatus. (Entries in Wiktionary are case-sensitive.) I'm not sure what else needs to happen. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: Rare words are definitely allowed in Wiktionary, even the Simple English one. I don't know where you got the idea that they aren't. Besides that, Simple English Wiktionary isn't only for words that are used in Simple English Wikipedia: it's for any real word someone wants to put in there. That includes rare words and even foreign words. Please stop telling people that rare words don't belong there. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Movie notability

Any thoughts? User talk:StevenJ81/Wikipedia:Notability (movies) Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: I left some comments there. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please?

Hey Auntof6! I was wondering if you can block IP user 70.24.33.238. It is getting annoying with it's disrupting editing. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We should really give them more warnings before blocking them. There has been only one warning so far. If they keep it up after getting some more warnings, then report them at WP:VIP. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I saw that he/she's currently active so I went ahead and blocked. --Auntof6 (talk)

He/she is doing the same disrupting editing again. Perhaps a longer block is really necessary. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like User:Chenzw blocked the IP. Be aware that a second block like this is normally longer, it's the standard process. Also, please report things like this at WP:VIP -- you never know when it will be seen if you post it on an admin's talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

changing from to by

Hey Auntof6, I noticed from was changed to by in two articles created by me. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's better tone. Wikipedia articles should be written in a formal, businesslike tone. When you say something like "from Carole King", it sounds a bit more like an advertisement or publicity. You may have heard advertising that says something like "And now, from Carole King comes the new single...". It's only an issue when you say from a person, though, not when you say from an album like the enwiki article. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Just asking admins or frequent editors if my contributions are any good thank you. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the articles you created are about good topics, but they don't all have references or categories. All articles in Wikipedia need to show WP:Notability one way or another. Some topics, like populated places, are considered to be always notable. For other topics, you show notability by 1) saying why the topic is notable and 2) supporting that claim by citing reliable sources. All articles also need to have categories, which vary with what kind of topic the article is about. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Notability? why are you deleting all of them I can go back and add notability. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If certain articles don't show notability, they can be quickly deleted under quick deletion option WP:QD#A4. We don't normally check who created them, so don't take it personally. If you want, I can move them to your userspace for you to work on. When they are ready, an admin can move them back (or you can copy the text to recreate them -- if you try to move them yourself, you would leave a bad redirect). Let me know if you'd like me to restore the ones deleted to your userspace, and/or move any others you're already created if they don't show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay I sort of understand, feel free to delete any that don't seem notable enough sorry for the confusion. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Are you sure you don't want me to put them in your userspace where you could work on them? It's no problem, I can even put the deleted ones there. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

is Demolition ready for moving back?

Hey Auntof6: Is Demolition ready for moving back or should it be worked on further? Angela Maureen (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty good, so I moved it to mainspace. Thanks for working on this with someone in your userspace. I did just want to mention one thing. In your original version, you had "Demolition is the opposite of deconstruction". That is not true. The enwiki article says "Demolition contrasts with deconstruction". That just means it's different, not that they're opposites. Please watch out for that kind of thing. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Golfers

why did you delete them? They showed notability. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

They did not show notability. Here are the entire contents of the ones I deleted:

• Hunter Mahan: Hunter Mahan is a golfer from Orange, California. He was born on May 17, 1982 in Orange, California.
• Bubba Watson :Bubba Watson is a golfer from Bagdad, Florida.

Nothing in there shows notability. There are millions of non-notable people who golf as a hobby, about whom you could say "John Doe is a golfer from Anytown, USA". Anyone can be a golfer, and everyone is from somewhere (and was born sometime). To show notability, they would have to talk about what tournaments they have won, or something like that, preferably with references. I left Ben Crane for now, because that at least says that he plays on the PGA Tour. However, I'm not sure that's enough to show notability, either, so that one might be nominated for deletion. You might want to read WP:Notability to get an understanding of what's needed to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

category:Zones of Nepal

Dear sir, I don't understand why you removed category:Zones of Nepal from Janakpur zone. -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 16:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Because the category didn't exist at that time. The category was deleted on May 31 because it didn't contain enough entries. I removed the category from the article on June 2. The category was created again on August 20, so it looks like I removed a category that had been created, but it didn't exist at the time I removed it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Jentina

Hi Auntof6, this is not urgent but if you have a spare 5 minutes can you give Jentina a good look over please?

Many thanks C-Sqwad (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Here are the main things I see:

• It looks like you based this on the English Wikipedia ("enwiki") article. If that is true, you need to put attribution on the talk page. That is a legal requirement, because without it it's a copyright violation, even though the source was another Wikipedia. The page Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution has instructions for how to do attribution.
• Reference #8 is broken. This happens when there are named references in an article and you remove the part of the article that defines the reference. You need to go back to the original article, find where the reference is defined, and copy that code into the article here.
• A lot of the sentences need to be divided into shorter pieces to make them simpler. For example, most of the intro is one very long sentence (from the beginning to "only released in Italy"). Try dividing the sentences so that there is one idea or one statement in each sentence. You don't have to separate all the different things she does
• There needs to be a "{{reflist}}" coded after the References heading.
• A couple of the references have "bare URLs". That means that all we see is the URL. They need to be coded to look like the other references.
• The category "Rappers" should be removed. It redirects to the category "Rap musicians", which is already covered by other categories on the article.
• There is some time-dependent language in the article, where it says "Jentina is now married and is raising a family." It's best to avoid using words like "now", "currently", etc., because that information can go out of date. Whatever we write in these articles can be here for a long time. This particular statement will become false when Jentina's children grow up. Some ways this can be fixed are:
  • In 2015, Jentina was...
  • As of 2015, Jentina was...
  • After [something], Jentina...

You can read about this issue at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Writing precisely.

I hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RedLinks

Leave ALL the RedLinks? 108.73.113.14 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually we leave all of them. Are you asking because the same thing is linked in more than one place in the article? In that case, the other link is in a table. It's OK to have the same thing linked more than once if the extra ones are in tables, infoboxes, navboxes, and similar things.

I know that might sound strange. It seemed strange to me when I first came here from English Wikipedia. This Wikipedia does some things differently. I made a list of some of them at User:Auntof6/Things I would like Wikipedia editors to know#Things we do here that might be different from other Wikis. If you read that and have any questions, let me know. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Auntof6/Things I would like Wikipedia editors to know looks interesting. Thanks. 108.73.113.14 (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"John Logo" sockpuppetry

An IP address has just created 2 pages, Category:John Logo and JSH (John Secret House), which are just nonsense, so I have tagged them for Quick Deletion. This are the first edits by this IP address, but Category:John Logo was definitely created about 1-2 days ago and got deleted. I am suspicious that sockpuppetry may be occurring here due to the similarities in this vandalism by at least two different IPs, but I do not know which IP originally carried out "John Logo"-related vandalism. I was unsure of where to ask about this so I thought I should mention this. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody has put this talk page in the category John Logo and for some reason I am unable to remove this. --Rubbish computer (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked Chenzw about this so never mind; he also sorted out the category link on this page. --Rubbish computer (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. As for where to report things: if something needs quick attention, report vandalism at WP:VIP, and anything else at the administrators' noticeboard. That way, any admin who is online can see it, and other editors can see that it has been reported. If it's something that doesn't need quick attention, I still recommend reporting at those places unless there's a reason you want a particular admin to take care of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks. --Rubbish computer (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

deaf wiki

hi, haw are u?? why this, this and this?? --SurdusVII 17:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@SurdusVII: Hello. I'm sorry I didn't leave you a message sooner to explain that. On this Wikipedia, we don't have as many stub types as English Wikipedia. It's not really helpful to have more stub types in most cases. If someone wants a new stub type, they need to get it approved first at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project. You might like to read past discussions there to get an idea of how we manage stubs. You can read about what we look for here.

There's one other thing I noticed about the sign language pages you created. They have very little information in them. They mostly just say the same thing as the title of the article. If more information isn't added, they could be deleted because of that. You could add something fo each article like the number of people who speak it, when it was invented, something that's different from other sign languages -- anything that we wouldn't know from just reading the title. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

hi, thank u for messagges :)

but I not much speak English simple, my level is 2 on English.. howerer, I know was difference between English simple and English :)

I speak native sicilian and italian language.. but I impared ;)

howerer this articles on signs languages, with the temps add and update, ok??

good soiree :) --SurdusVII 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject countries

hi, haw are u?? where is my talk page?? :) --SurdusVII 10:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page is at User talk:SurdusVII. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank u :) --SurdusVII 16:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your advice

I'm trying to fix this mess. I have lucky because the article is short. I had made a little changes on the heading. I'll look another articles like this one to correct the text. --Ravave (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, i have made some changes about the writing. What do you think this time?, and what should i do for improve it?. I'm aware that would be more errors. --Ravave (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I know you told me no write in your usertalk, but you didn't answer my changes in the article. Now i've made some little changes following suggestions from a partner. I hope the article be more legible than last days. By the way, i just saw the Requests for deletion's period is gone. What's the decision, keep or delete? --Ravave (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember telling you not to write on my talk page. Most of the changes you made are very good. There are one or two of them that need fixing. I will take care if those later. The RfD hasn't been closed yet. I can't close it because I participated in the discussion. A other admin will need to close it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your continuous work to improve this encyclopedia. Rubbish computer (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Category Work

Hi Auntof6. Good to see you! ;) I was going through your contributions and took interest in your category work with Cat-A-Lot. Is there any way I could get started and help? eurodyne (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty sporadic. I don't know of anything in particular that needs doing right now: I just do things as I find them. Cat-A-Lot is just a tool for doing things I'd otherwise do by other methods. Are you familiar with Cat-A-Lot? I had used it a lot on Wikimedia Commons, and User:Green Giant told me how to get it to work here. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I use it sometimes on Commons. I'm kind of running out of "maintenance" tasks to complete. Do you have any ideas? eurodyne (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some ideas off the top of my head:

• Cleanup stuff under Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories: there's lots of stuff to do there. Some of it's tedious and not fun, but there's variety and a lot of it has been outstanding for a long time. See Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 113#Would anyone like a medium-small cleanup project? here for a specific idea I floated at Simple talk a while back.
• Check Wikipedia: at this website you can find things in need of attention that have been detected by database scans. There are many different kinds of things: various syntax errors, redundant stuff (such as categories appearing twice in the same article or multiple {{reflist}} templates), etc. I think some of the things are taken care of by bots, so sometimes there isn't much in need of doing, but there's usually something. If you do take care of something there (whether it's individual items or everything for a given error), please be sure to mark it as done. Also note that some things there might not really need fixing. An example of that was defaultsorts with lower case letters, but I don't see that one there now so maybe they stopped checking for that.
• I know you've been doing some disambiguating: if you want to do more, there's probably a lot of need for that in the area of what I think of as "language/nationality words" (Chinese, Italian, etc.). I have lists of these at User:Auntof6/Language and nationality work#Big lists. Just one thing about these: When I'm working on them and I come across a use of the word that refers to people, and the dab page doesn't have an entry for people, I've been trying to make the entry for people instead of just linking to the country (or city, or whatever). I do that even if it's a redlinked entry or redirects to the place. For example, the dab page Latvian doesn't have an entry for people. Instead of linking something like "Jane Doe is a Latvian singer" as [[Latvia]]n, I would link it as [[Latvians|Latvian]], add it to the dab page, then maybe create the page as a redirect to the place.

Does any of that interest you? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean, I've done some of all of that. The language disambiguating interests me, however I can't find any pages that needed fixing at User:Auntof6/Language and nationality work#Big lists. eurodyne (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that those listed pages needed fixing, but that links to them need fixing. I don't know how you checked, but I found one right off the bat: Catalan. I just picked one of the dab pages at random that wasn't a red link, and checked what links to it. I just fixed those, though, so you don't need to. Would it help if I made a separate list that had only the dab pages on it? Those stick out to me, because I have a modification that makes them show up highlighted in yellow. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure! That extra page would be great! Thanks for all of your hard work! ;) eurodyne (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I made a separate section at the bottom of the same page. The new section has only the dab pages. Have fun! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Eurodyne:How about adding interwiki links in Wikidata? I think most new pages (articles, categories, and templates) aren't getting added, and there are still a lot of older ones that aren't linked. Just be sure to add them only if there is an exact match to link with. --Auntof6 (talk)

I do that every now and then. Thanks for the suggestion. eurodyne (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts on 2016 U.S. presidential election page

Do you prefer the current version or this version -> [4]? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The main difference I see is in the info about candidates. I prefer the earlier format. One reason is that I think the large paragraphs with detail about who declared when could be tough to wade through. Maybe there's another way to present that info, maybe as a timeline. The other reason is that I don't think this article needs too much detail on each candidacy (especially the logos, and maybe even their current/former jobs): there seems to be an article on each campaign, and the detail can be there. Besides those things, the text needs simplifying. --Auntof6 (talk)

Ok. Article has been updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Game of Death

Thank Auntof6. Can you help me? Could you be kind enough to translate the page into Simple English ? Please Eticanicotao (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6!: Please!

I'm thinking about it. It would help if you would at least divide it into paragraphs. Right now it's one big mass of text. That makes it harder to work with. It would also help to know if you copied or translated the text from somewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Auntof6, Eticanicotao has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better! Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had trouble with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Eticanicotao (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

OK.

• User:Eticanicotao/The Game of Death#Other websites
• q:en:The Game of Death
• q:zh-yue:死亡的遊戲
• q:it:The Game of Death
• en:Game of Death
• zh-yue:死亡遊戲
• zh:死亡遊戲
• q:it:L'ultimo combattimento di Chen
• q:it:Bruce Lee - La leggenda

Eticanicotao (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6 OK? Eticanicotao (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6 You can create this page ? Eticanicotao (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. The page in your userspace is not ready to be an article yet. I see that you haven't done anything with it since I moved it to your userspace. Are you going to work on it? I'm willing to help you work on it, but not do all the work myself. If you haven't read our pages that explain how to write here, you might like to look at Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. Read those and let me know if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I speak English but not perfectly . You are right : you can not do it all , but you eliminate almost everything and leave only the essential contents . This you can do it please? Eticanicotao (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6 I tweaked the page. Can you complete please? Eticanicotao (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dance/Mix Show Airplay

I apologize for copying. I'm going to restart the article without copying.Robert Moore (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be fine. You can use the English Wikipedia article as a starting point, you just need to simplify it. Sometimes it helps to work on it in a sandbox in your userspace to start with. That gives you time to work on the simplifying. Let me know if you'd like help setting that up. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Hey Auntof6. I've been interested in making Bernie Sanders a GA nominee. And I was wondering if you can skim through the article to check some minor errors. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I might not have time before Sunday. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Any time is appreciated. Your thoughts are important. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I did some simplifying to the intro. Here are some notes:

• There are too many places that have multiple references for one thing. It would be good to reduce that.
• Please remember to minimize or eliminate time-dependent language, such as saying "he is the junior senator". I changed some of that in the intro, but there might be more in the rest of the article.
• Use past tense for more things in the article. Remember that the text in the article will be there for a long time and the things described won't be current in the future.

Was there something specific you wanted me to look for? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any simplification that needs to be done? Such as hard words that can be simplified? And check if my changes helped reduce the problems you said. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Flood Flag?

Did you forget? :P eurodyne (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Phooey! I remembered to give it to myself (after I did a couple), but I guess I needed to re-login. Thanks for the reminder! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Such language, Aunt. I'm shocked. Utterly shocked! (;-) StevenJ81 (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like changes done with Cat-a-Lot show up anyway. :( Well, I don't think I have many more to do. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Laura Branigan article now worthless and obsolete because of YOU! I dare you to delete this, I already took a screen snapshot and am posting it around Facebook et al. on LB fan sites. I will never work with you again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Branigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.57.249 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

trashware mistake

Two days ago you reverted my change to Trashware. Very good, I added a template... an italian template... ehm... My error, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianoPistore (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Edition or Version?

I believe you have passion to change article or block my ips do it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.116.146 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP address of stalker? Might be helpful  :>

Again, if editing is needed, please let me know, new to WIKI but going to bed soon amthompson210@gmail.com thank you for letting me know and I'll see the welcome pg etc. tomorrow, I left laptop open and went to work and came home to find the deletion warning, but an Epitaph should have some background about it , which I certainly provided...I'm biased against Caesar's assassins, yes, but a new work, Death of Caesar, explains how it was not done out of honor , but for petty, jealous, personal reasons of each coward involved, wish the author's name was in my head but only sheep keep whispering 1001, 1002,...zzzzz good night , c u manana.. :> -Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.137.196 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexander 'baquads' Aglen-Wright

Why did thou delete the page of this most magnificent person who has broken these records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.214.205 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Auntof6. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

eurodyne (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. eurodyne (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind checking again? There were a couple of new things that I have sent to you. eurodyne (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've checked yet, but just another kind reminder. Thanks, eurodyne (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

One more thing I want you to look at in the email. Take your time, I understand. ;) eurodyne (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible FA for Ronald Reagan

I was wondering if nominating Ronald Reagan for FA in the really near future (not now) is a good idea? Like any feedback or tips. Take your time or when you can. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

concerns

Hey Auntof6: My computer broke down. That's why you didn't see me on Simple Wikipedia for this month. I'll be back soon. Please be patient.

Angela Maureen (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

New pages

Regarding C-Sqwad still forgetting to use the sandbox. He posted one album article yesterday (9/21/2015), The Velvet Rope. While he didn't ask me to check it first, it did use simple sentences. But it still need more work in other areas. He has older articles that escaped his sandbox as well. I won't mark them patrolled until they're put back or I get an OK from you. I wondered if your warning this morning only applied to articles under the username C-Sqwad? Because curiously we have two more entities posting the same kinds of album articles with the same mistakes. They also contain some of the same unreliable source citations. The other two are LuvmeorHateme (blocked at en.wiki) and 86.133.178.216. Do you know something about this coincidence I don't know? Let me know what you'd like me to do. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

users ahole and scumbag

they had numbers after them look in recent changes. sorry for confusion. --Fdena (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC) and wild blocks 1 --Fdena (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fdena: I think I found them (A-hole4202 and Scumbag420), but please give the entire user name when you leave messages like this.

I'm not sure these are bad enough to block due to their user name. "A-hole" isn't the full bad word, and I don't think "scumbag" is bad enough to block as a bad user name. "Wild blocks 1" certainly isn't a bad user name. As for being a vandal, Wild blocks 1 has made only one edit; the edit was reverted, and the user has been warned about it. We don't usually block until a user has had several warnings.

By the way, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. If you've come here from English Wikipedia, you'll find that we do some things differently. I have a list of some of the differences at User:Auntof6/Things I would like Wikipedia editors to know#Things we do here that might be different from other Wikis. You're welcome to look at the list and let me know if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

blank spaces left before stub template

For what reason is a blank space left before the stub template? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We leave two blank lines before a stub template so that the text generated by the template doesn't appear too close to what's above it. This is the only template we leave two blank lines with. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you remember...

about Mi querida España? I'm going to make an article about the singer (in my sandbox, of course). This time i will paid more attention to my grammar and i shall try to translate it "step by step" in order to be a decent article. If you wont, you can give me some suggestions. Bye and greetings. --Ravave (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ravave: Was I supposed to be doing something with this? If so, I'm sorry I forgot. Are you working on it in your sandbox now? If so, I will look at it. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

When a fact has a WP:RS next to it, please do not delete it. if that fact has a number, and a reference, then it is verified. You deleted one of these Reliable Sources that I added, and this is considered vandalism. Thank you. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

2008 Lions

Do you know the 2008 Lions? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I know they're an American football team, but I don't know a lot about them because I'm not very interested in sports. Why do you ask? I don't have to know much about them to simplify the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding Science images

Hi Auntof6! I just added an image to Friction after helping my daughter with her homework. The image was from Wikimedia so I'm wondering why it was deleted? Smlombardi (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC) The image is there . . . sorry . . . ;-0 Smlombardi (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2008 Detroit Lions season

Please help me improve the article 2008 Detroit Lions season, a article I created about the Lions who went 0-16 in 2008 whenever. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What kind of help do you want? Also, I declined your request to delete the article. Why did you want it deleted? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I want it more simple for people to read. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I simplified it. Let me know if you have any questions about what I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan infobox question

Hey Auntof6, do you think the information of Reagan being President of the Screen Actors Guild should still remain on his infobox or be removed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I would take it out. You could put that info in a succession box at the bottom of the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability

You can just as easily as I migrate over information from the other language Wikipedias when you find the language of the lede falling short of what you find as ideal. The Mabel Boll article is available in English, Japanese and French. It would be silly to delete it from this wiki because you think the lede is inadequate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry we're butting heads over this. It isn't a question of what I find ideal. Let me try to explain what is needed to show notability. A person who has an obituary in a publication like you describe has most likely done things to make them important enough to have that. Those things are what we need mentioned in the article here. Put another way, notability is required both for the prestigious obituary and for the Wikipedia article, but having a Wikipedia article doesn't entitle a person to the obituary and having the obituary doesn't entitle the person to a Wikipedia article. Also, if the person's article in another Wikipedia shows notability, the notability still has to be shown here.

Yes, anyone could improve an article to make it show notability. However, if your plan is to create articles and let others add the required information, other editors aren't going to appreciate you making work for them. You have created a lot of articles here, and I think most of them have been good additions. The discussions of the Mabel Boll article and the Edward Sims Van Zile articles, however, show that you might not fully understand the requirements about notability. If you're going to continue to create articles, it's important that you know what is required.

By the way, please do not remove maintenance tags, such as the notability notice, from articles that you created yourself. If notability is questioned, it's better to let another party determine whether the issue has been resolved. That could be either the person who tagged the article or another person altogether.

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know about WP:Notabilty as well as you, the problem is your perception of notability as superb-ability. Notability is being written about by reliable media, your are looking for some sort of awesomeness, that is not a requirement in the GNG. You can just be a notable author, you do not have to be an awesome author. Butting heads could have been avoided by notifying me and not deleting out of process. I never would have noticed if I did not check the log. I respect your opinion, but is just one opinion, this is a team project. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not looking for any kind of super notability. I am looking to have article text that says why the person is notable. Notability is supported by being written about by reliable media, but the fact that such writing exists is not what makes him notable. If it did, we could have articles that said only something like "John Doe was a person whose obituary appeared in The New York Times." The article needs to say why the person was notable. For example, did any of his publications win awards or appear on best-seller lists? In truth, I don't see anything in the article's references that seems notable, either. If he was a notable author, what made him notable? It wasn't the obituary or the brief biography: he would have achieved notability before those things were written.

Anyway, I feel like I'm repeating myself and not getting through to you that this is what we require, so I'll see if someone else wants to try explaining it. It could be that our guidelines neeed to be clarified. Finally, I did not "delete out of process": I followed our standard process for deleting articles. You're welcome to ask for a modification of the process: I can see the point that when an admin finds and deletes a page (for any reason, not just notability), it's frustrating for the creator not to be notified if the page was created in good faith. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

For King and Country (band)

Please help me expand that article and put in links to it. I also want categories in it too. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes to list of countries

Hi,

I just wanted to point out that Scotland, England and Wales are countries with independent flags, languages and cultures. As a Welshman, I find it offensive to not include these as countries on your list. Furthermore, the UK is not actually a country in itself. It is a State made of four countries, three of which are almost completely governed by England and Great British governance. Northern Ireland has it's own government, though international relations and tax are still governed under English and Great British law.

Many kind regards,

Mr. Harris --— Preceding unsigned comment added by JHarrisGCS (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@JHarrisGCS: I understand your point of view. However, for Wikipedia purposes, the United Kingdom is the country.

I have visited Wales, and I liked it very much. What part are you from? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't just let this slide. I don't really understand why you can not include them as countries, can you please clarify you justification for this? Simply saying for Wikipedia purposes is not good enough. When major sports events like the FA World Cup is played, countries that are represented are England, Scotland, Wales, etc. there is not a UK team. Furthermore, even when Olympic games are held, there is a GBR team, but NOT a UK team.

In addition to this, all of the COUNTRIES within the UK may not all be a sovereign entity but they exist as COUNTRIES. They have defined borders, their own capital cities, their own legal system (both historical and a newly emerging modern ones, also note the UK, despite being a sovereign state, unlike other countries has never developed her own legal system),their own languages, own distinct cultures, own institutions etc.

What they may not have is their own currency? Neither does most of Europe today, and many other countries share the US dollar. They also don't all have their own head of state. Well, many countries today share a head of state with other countries. The Commonwealth is a fine example of that. It that was something even more usual historically. Including in the time Wales came to share the same head of state of England. Also, despite having distinct independent institutions we all share other institutions with the rest of the UK because we are a part of the UK, just as we now share institutions with the EU because we are part of the EU. We are part of international institutions like the UN, EU, NATO as part of the UK, we are also part of other international institutions as Wales, like the Celtic League and the Celtic Congress.

In conclusion, there is nothing to say that these are not therefore all separate countries and if you do not agree, then you need to delete all European countries and put them under EU. Your reasoning is nonsensical and I'm finding very difficult to comprehend what the issue is. Please enlighten me...

A new help page

Aunt: I was working on an idea for new help page. I wondered if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it. See what you think and any improvements or wording changes you think might be warranted. When you have time. It's currently at Rus793/help. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it later. Is it based on an enwiki page? In the meantime, I moved it to userspace because it had an invalid name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rus793: I see that the page I moved got recreated, so I moved it again (this time to User:Rus793/help2. That's not a valid name for a mainspace page, plus it's better to have it in your userspace while you're working on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was supposed to be in userspace. I don't know how it got recreated. When I last worked on the page is hadn't been moved anywhere. Yes, parts of it were borrowed from an enwiki page as well as other pages here. Look it over when you can, thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rus793: Which one do you want me to look at: User:Rus793/help or User:Rus793/help2? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The page at User:Rus793/help2. Both you and Steven corrected the mistaken name and I ended up with two versions. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your help at The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise.

Much appreciated,

Cirt (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello :)

Hello.  :)

I noticed you quickly changed an edit I did. Did I do something wrong? Stewi101015 (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your advice. I'll remember for next time! :) The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 11:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. You could have left this reply on your talk page, so that both parts of the conversation stayed together. By the way, you might want to check your signature: the part that should link to your talk page seems to be misspelled. --~~ ~

All fixed! The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 15:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at ChecKemzV's talk page.
Message added 00:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 00:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at ChecKemzV's talk page.
Message added 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you keep reverting my user talk page? I (at least should) have the right to remove content that is invalid or irrelevant. The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 18:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@ChecKemzV: It's bad form to just delete something from a user talk page, especially if someone else has participated in it. It's better to archive it so that the conversation isn't lost. Removing the section that you removed isn't as bad as removing other kinds of conversations, but it's better not to. Why not set up an archive page? I can help you do that if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting NPP Advice

Hi, Aunt. As I was doing NPP, I ran across this: Il racconto della nonna. It's a stub, and the English isn't great. I didn't find articles in enwiki or itwiki, and I found very little on the piece using Google. But it's got a pretty substantial recording history over a 70+ year period, so I'm inclined to say that it is notable. Any thoughts? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; is this appropriate cultural behavior?

		Mmm - Milk!
		A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

If you mean is it culturally appropriate to give me this milk, yes it is. Thank you! I happen to love milk, unlike most people I know. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

May I offer you some cookies too? Stewi101015 (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop deleting articles out of process

If you think Benedetta Cappa is not worthy of being here, have the courtesy to notify me, and to take the article to AFD. The last time you did this the article was restored and kept. That should be a clue that your sole opinion is not as good as the collective wisdom of multiple editors. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, other editors agreed that Edward Sims Van Zile did not show notability as it was originally written. The article was kept only after other editors added more information that showed notability. If you want your articles kept here, you need to understand our requirements about notability and reflect that in the articles you create.

I understand your frustration, but what I did is in accordance with our normal processes. If you would like to see those processes changed (and I think you'd have a good argument for changing them), you are free to propose a change to the wording. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of BlipCanal

I get it. I understand that these pages are fake, but the truth is I like to experiment with creating pages. BlipCanal was just a part of Experiment No. 1; I wanted to see how people would react. I am begging you, please don't do this to me! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.17.168 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to experiment with creating pages, you can register and create them in your own userspace. (Unregistered editors cannot have userspace pages.) Edit tests other than page creation can be done in the sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox. Mainspace is not to be used for test pages or experimenting. Do not create any more test or experimental pages. If you do, you may be blocked from editing here. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable

Can you show me the rule that forbids using the word "notable" in a biography. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

en:WP:PEACOCK. We have the same thing at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, but without the specific list of words. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Then make a list ... so that it isn't arbitrary and capricious. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The list is on the page that I linked. It's not possible to list all possible words, but the specific one you were adding is there. And stop accusing me of negative character traits just because you don't like what I'm doing. (You could easily have phrased that as "so that we can know what the problem words are".) If you do anything like that again, I will make a complaint of personal attack and you will likely be blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

peacock term removal

I just noticed the term hit song being changed to just song. For what reason is hit song called puffery? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to give facts about things and keep a neutral point of view. They are not supposed to say they are good or bad, or how good or bad they are. Hit is one of the specific words listed at en:WP:PEACOCK as being puffery. If a song was a hit song, just give the facts that made it a hit. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nederland Sign Language

why the page is deleted?? --SurdusVII 09:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Pages can be quickly deleted if they consist only of "a rephrasing of the title". The content of the article was "Nederland Sign Language is the sign language of the dutchs deaf". All that information can be gotten from the title. If you want to add to it, it can be restored. You could add information about when it was created, how many people use it, etc. Besides that, wouldn't it be called "Dutch sign language"? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

yes, is Dutch Sign Linguage.. but is deleted and you can redirect more now.. --SurdusVII 10:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "you can redirect more now". --Auntof6 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean you could do a redirect?? --SurdusVII 10:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Indent on Talk page or just Simple Talk has meaning?

Did you intend to indent on Wikipedia:Simple talk#Benedetta Cappa? Others didn't indent either ... ? Does that have meaning, or am I trying too hard to guess how to edit on SEWikipedia? Stewi101015 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Indenting is based on the text you are replying to, which might not be the text right above yours. For example, if three people reply to the same text, their replies will all be indented the same amount. You tell them apart by where the signatures are. If that's not what you were asking, please clarify. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow; that is good to know. Yes, I thought indent "levels" were just stairsteps for readability. Thank you, again. Stewi101015 (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick delete tags

I thought I should mention to you, since I saw you tell someone else the wrong thing, that quick delete tags can be removed by anyone except the article creator who must use the wait tag. This is because anything quick deleted and that is objected to by another editor must be immediately restored. Thus removing the tag avoids an unnecessary step. You will notice the QD tag only mentions that the creator can't remove it. Although other users can also use the wait tag, but they are not obligated to. -DJSasso (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, then I am getting conflicting information. I was told before that only admins can remove QD tags. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification regarding a phrase

Auntof6, please forgive the intrusion. As background I am gifting you with a diff: [5]. You correctly changed my wording in an early article of mine from "most famous" as being POV. The wording you used as your change was to 'he is "best known" for being a member of the alternative rock band'. I take this to mean in any context, a person had many accomplishments but this is what most people would recognise them far. I feel sure I have since used this elsewhere. Now currently, see this change just made to a different article: [6] with the reasoning that "best known" is "peacock". I will be happy to amend my ways rather than be drive-by corrected. Thanks muchly. Fylbecatulous talk 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Best known" is not a peacock term and I have reverted the change. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, again. Fylbecatulous talk 16:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

notice

I am talking with someone about something that may have some relation to you at Wikipedia:Simple talk#What is Wikimedia Outreach?, if of interest. Stewi101015 (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:VIP

Please review those requests. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind.  Done by another user. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Flood flag?

What is a ¨flood flag¨? Seen on Special:Log/rights. Stewi101015 (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a setting that stops a user's changes from appearing in ("flooding") Special:RecentChanges. It's used when the user is going to make a large number of the same kind of non-controversial change. It's given for a limited time, just to do specific work. An example of when it might be given is to rename some categories that contain a lot of entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Such as some global automated change? Stewi101015 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of thing you mean. Many global and automated changes are done by bots. Bot changes don't show up in recent changes anyway, so they wouldn't need the flood flag. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Okay. Thank you again.  :) Stewi101015 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

about my page

I tagged my archieve talk page for quick deletion. I made a new one. Can you please delete it. Thank you! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it. If you tag it for deletion, you don't need to leave a talk page message to ask for the same thing. In fact, it's usually best not to leave requests for admin work on an admin's talk page. Where there is a procedure for a type of request, use the procedure. Where there is non procedure, leave a message on the Admins' noticeboard. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:ChecKemzV

Unfortunately, despite whatever I mentioned in the previous email, he is still entitled to removal of comments from his own user talk page. Messages are still visible in the page history. We can't exactly stop him from being discourteous in that regard. Chenzw  Talk  01:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Chenzw: Thank you. S/he didn't listen when *I* wanted to say that. Krett12 (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with trying to get an editor to be considerate. In the end, if they refuse, they refuse. In any case, he/she restored everything after returning from break, so maybe the point got through. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

my article

Just created another NFL related season article about the 2007 New York Giants season. I created it because of its playoff run. Please look at it and let me know what you think about it. Also, leave me a talkback notice on my talk page. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It needs some simplifying, copy editing for grammar, and editing for tone. It reads more like a sports report than an encyclopdia article. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you request copyediting on the article? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind.  Done by another user. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 (change conflict) There's no formal process. You can tag the article, but that doesn't ensure that anyone would see the tag or do anything. You could ask at Simple talk or on a specific editor's talk page. I see that another editor has done some of the work on this article, but a bit more is still needed. I could do some in a bit (I can't do it this minute). In any case, if other editors simplify or copy edit, look at what they do and ask any questions you have so you can learn to do it yourself. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I just simplified some more. Take a look and let me know if you have any questions about what I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Which tag do you use to tag copyedit? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I will do the same with the 2007 New England Patriots season article too. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Love it. Do the same with the 2007 New England Patriots season and add information in it. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm not a sports fan, I'm not really interested in doing a lot of work on these. I'd rather help you do it, so that you'll be able to write simple articles yourself. Look at what I did and do the same kinds of things. If you're not sure about what I did, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

2007 Patriots

Please do copyediting on the article in the section spygate. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That didn't need copy editing, it needed simplifying. Actually, since it was copied with very little simplifying from the enwiki article, I have deleted the section from the article. Please don't add text from enwiki without simplifying it enough for this Wiki. You can learn about simplifying at Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. I'd rather help you learn to simplify your own work than to do it for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What can I say? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Auntof6. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Winkelvi (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I got your email. I removed the RfD from that page mostly because the RfD page linked was the closed one from earlier this year. At that time, it was determined that the article did claim and show notability. Nothing supporting that has been removed from the article since then, so presumably that is still the case. Nevertheless, if you want to try again, you can, but since the previous RfD already used the standard page name for RfDs, you will have to either wait until next year (because the year is part of the page name) or manually create the page with a modified name. I believe the convention for creating such RfD pages is to append something to the end of the page name, such as the number "2".

If that doesn't answer what you were asking, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Categories

I consider you a real expert on categories, so wonder if you can answer a question for me about that.

• First, if I asked you this already, I apologize for repeating myself.
• Second, what I'm asking is for use on Judeo-Spanish Wikipedia, where I am an Administrator, as well as on a couple of Judeo-Spanish projects on Incubator. I'm not planning to play with this here.

Question is this:

(part a) If I change the name of a category, will the Wiki software itself change the name of the category on the constituent pages? Or does one simply rely on a redirect from the old name of the category to the new to navigate?

(part b) If the software doesn't change the name of the category on the constituent pages, does a bot exist that does that?

Thanks very much! StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My experience is only with Wikimedia wikis. The answers might be different with others.

• Part a: In the wikis I've worked on, a category name is changed by moving the category. Doing that does not change the category on pages (articles and other things) in the category: that has to be done separately. If a page is in a redirected category, that would direct you to the real category, but you would not see the page when looking at the real category. Because of that, the pages should themselves be changed and not just left in the redirected category. I like to use Cat-a-lot to do that -- an editor recently showed me how to use it here.
• Part b: As far as I know, the base wiki software itself does not include any bots. I believe bots have been written to recategorize pages in redirected categories, but I don't know if every Wikimedia project (Wikipedias, Commons, or other sister projects) has one. I don't know if any such bot works across multiple wikis: they might be local to each wiki, according to whether anyone has written a bot there. If there is a cross-wiki bot under Wikimedia, I don't know if you need to "register" each wiki that wants to use it, or if it automatically processes all official Wikipedias.

I hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If I can get Cat-A-Lot to work, that would probably do the job. So far, it's not. I copied the lines from your common.js file here to my common.js file there (lad:Usador:StevenJ81/common.js). Bypassed cache, etc. Not seeing anything so far. What am I missing? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I only copied that code, I don't understand how it works well enough to help you with it. You might ask user Green Giant -- that user gave me the code. Maybe not all Wikipedias can import like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Drake Bell

Please do not edit my comments in Rfd discussions. You can disagree in your comment if you wish. I hope you didn't think it was a veiled criticism—it certainly was not. At the time I added my comment I had not checked to see who supplied the source citation. It was always about this source, specifically, the editorial control and nature of this source. Fuller is the editorial control at her site and also employs other gossip columnists who, by definition, mix fact with opinion, rumors, and innuendo. In addition they frequently have reciprocal agreements with celebrities to keep their names in the press. w:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources is very specific about sources with a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." It might be suitable for a lesser fact but not one on which to base notability. Also, a BLP requires high quality sources, which this is not. I hope you understand the comment was about the source; nothing more. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the only thing I meant to do there was remove the IP's comment about the article being stupid. I somehow missed the fact that there had been another edit after that. I didn't have anything at all in mind about your comment because I hadn't seen it. Sorry again. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I saw the comment about it being stupid. I see why you deleted it. At any rate, after posting the above I took a second look and found a few reliable sources. I added the sources and text to the article and found it necessary to change my comment to Weak Keep. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

1980 New Orleans Saints season

Please help me with the article above. I did some. Several other teams finished 1-15 after the Saints. I don't really feel like doing it. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@74.130.133.1: What is it exactly that you don't feel like doing? Working on the article, or one or more of the specific things I mentioned? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Since several other teams finished 1-15 after the 1980 saints, such as the 2001 panthers or the 2007 Dolphins, I kept it. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

any complex terms/words

Does the current article that I'm working on have any complex words or terms? Please tell me. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What article is that? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:September 1988/Meningococcal disease is that article. Angela Maureen (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I left comments on the talk page. When you ask someone to look at an article, please give the link to the page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

technoquat

Thank you for reverting the vandalism. FYI: That account Technoquat is banned on the English Wikipedia. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem -- all part of the service! I'm just glad I saw it while it was in progress. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Good morninng, Auntof6, please forgive my error. Seeing as how you are some sort of expert and have made good changes before in the article, I actually went back in the history and looked at this diff of yours from July to check validity of what has been in history of article before I made my reversion: [7] . This was a stable version, I thought; before all the recent back-and-forth with vandals. Unless I need more coffee; it says "Time Crush". ツ But of course, I was doing the wrong research. I now see that enwiki has an article on the episode entitled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Crash. I am finding the facts of Doctor Who more confusing than writing an article on Compact Muon Solenoid. that is still a redlink in Higgs boson. I am obviously in over my head being in the states and am just removing these articles from my watchlist. Sorry again; I so dislike making a wrong accusation :(( Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 14:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I don't claim to be an expert in Doctor Who, either, just a big fan. (I'm in the US, too, by the way.) I just happen to have seen the Time Crash mini-episode, so I knew the right name of it. I'm actually still planning to change the stuff that has been getting added lately about The Master, hopefully in a way that will satisfy the editor who added it (I don't think of him as a vandal, just an editor with a point of view). I find it interesting that he hasn't put this information in the enwiki articles (or if he has, it has been removed). --Auntof6 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ツ Yes, I am still interested in the Master (Doctor Who) disagreement and actually put a comment on the article talk page supporting your version. Although I will not be editing the article, I decidedly know you will prevail. Continued happy editing, Fylbecatulous talk 14:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

2007 New England Patriots season

Thanks for helping. I'm just making test edits in the sandbox. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

recreated Jackie Evancho

the page you deleted i recreated with notability and i can possibly add more. thanks. --Fdena (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

what do i need to do to claim notability? --Fdena (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. If you're talking about Jackie Evancho, the new version of the page didn't show notability, either. In addition, pages about living people must have at least one reference. To show notability, you could mention her gold and platinum albums, and maybe the albums that entered the Billboard charts in the top 10. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay no problem. --Fdena (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How's it look now? --Fdena (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That shows notability now, although I think mentioning the gold and platinum albums would be really good, too. Aside from that, it still needs a reference, the first sentence could be split in two to be simpler, and it needs to be fully categorized (with a defaultsort). I can help you learn how to do that if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed

Hey. Can I ask for confirmed rights for this account? I would like to be able to use Twinkle. Thanks! Jianhui68 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

When your account is 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits, it will be autoconfirmed. Please wait until then: I don't like to specifically give the confirmed right. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Help grammar english

Hello Auntof6, can you help me? I speack english but nor perfect, could you check Concord Production Inc. and The Game of Death please? Smitersleon (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Smitersleon (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Auntof6, sorry but can you help me?: Can you carry and synthesize the content in original plot and in original production in this paige please? Smitersleon (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

About: a possible action of a sockpuppet here in simple:wiki

Hi, Auntof6! I'm one of the administrators of io:wikipedia and, recently, I've discovered an "article" created by a guy who used many sockpuppets (en:User:Duccaa, en:User:Vandertor, and others). His real name is Amilton de Cristo, and he created the same "article" in many Wikipedias, about a "Theological seminary" named Institute of Biblical Theological Education - abbreviation IETBB, and he "defended" the "truthness" of the informations using his sockpuppets. Today I've discovered that a similar "article" was created here, and also in other Wikipedias. This guy was blocked in all Wikipedias, and he had created more than 100 (one hundred) sockpuppets in Portuguese Wikipedia You can see a list of his sockpuppets here. This guy may have invented other names in other languages, and/or other wikis).

In io:wikipedia I've simply erased the "article" and blocked its author, as I will always do there whenever a vandal attacks. Here in simple:wiki, and in other wikis, I only can alert you. I've checked most of the "references" (in Portuguese) at the end of the page of the article [Institute of Biblical Theological Education] and I've discovered that they do not talk about the "institute" - even one of them simply does not exist...

Please advice the administrators of the other Wikipedias, in which he created the "article". Best regards (in Portuguese: "Um grande abraço", In Ido: "Amikale") Joao Xavier (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like we should take some advice.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Action taken, moved this discussion to RFD.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving 2015

Hey Auntof6: Happy Thanksgiving! Angela Maureen (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Angela. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a question for you....

...when you were still new here, were you as active as you are now? Krett12 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I was more active then. Why do you ask? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to guess if I will get more or less active as time passes, and I thought it might be the same answer as yours. Krett12 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That will depend at least partly on what you want to do here. When I was new, I found some areas where I thought some major improvements could be made, and I worked on those for a long time. Now that I'm an admin, it's harder to work on the things I'd like to do, because admin work keeps coming up. Even if I weren't an admin, though, I can't think of much major work that I'd like to do -- there's some, but not as much as I saw before. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Then resign, if being an admin is just too much work. Krett12 (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was too much work, just that it can get in the way. I imagine other admins feel the same way sometimes. However, I also like the admin work, and it's needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Aren't there like 5 other admins? Meh, if you don't want to quit, I sure am not going to make you. Krett12 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are several others, but sometimes we are too few to keep up with everything, especially active vandalism. In any case, all I was saying was that there's a downside to being an admin, but that doesn't mean it's a negative overall. Aside from that, you make it sound like you want me to quit. Is that the case? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When I thought we needed more admins (and suggested myself) everybody said we had enough. So we should pick some other people out then.... Krett12 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? I just looked at your request for admin rights, and I don't see that in any of the oppose votes. In any case, it's only sometimes that we don't keep up with things. It's not most of the time. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

While I know you meant to give a different summary....

...that one scared me a little! Krett12 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that! That's why I undid it with a comment that it was an accident, even tbough I made the same change again with a different edit summary. When I'm using my tablet, sometimes I accidentally tap a spot I don't mean to. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Zoom in, or have a "tablet" account that has no Twinkle or sysop on it so screw-ups are minimal. That's my advice ;) Krett12 (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

My screw-ups are already minimal, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Niki Romijn

Hi, why you delete it my articel Niki Romijn? I have add it refrences where I have found it and she have's a personal website? So what's the problem?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The article didn't say why she was notable. The sources were not what Wikipedia considers reliable, so they didn't help to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Flood flag

I realized you are a sysop, could you please add the flood flag to my account temporarily. Thanks! Jim Carter (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. When you do these removals, are you making sure the data in the template is in either Wikidata or the article? I can give you the flood flag at a time when I'll be around for a while so I'll be available to remove it when you're done. I would expect you to do only the template removal (and, where needed, adding the template data into the article) while you have the flag, and to log out after it is removed. Agreed? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Do me a favour!

Hello, Auntof6,

Long time no see, how are you!

Just now one of your editors removed my words on talk page of OS X, then I reverted and asked him/her not to remove my words. Minutes later, I got a message, here. I have completely no ideas about the personal attack. You might get well with situation, and please make some explanations to me, please!

I looked at what you wrote on the user's talk page. I don't think there was a personal attack there.

I looked at what you put on the article talk page. It is unusual to put that much text on a talk page, but it is OK. If I understand correctly, you were asking for help to make that text simple enough to put in the article. Is that right? Part of the problem might be that the other user didn't understand what you wanted. He might not know that we sometimes put suggested changes on talk pages.

I don't have time to look at this more right now, but I will later. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much and wish you everything goes well.

I want to mention here that this is not the first such incident[8]. @Krett12: I think you should re-look into what is considered a personal attack. Chenzw  Talk  11:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The title sounded rude, demanding, and talking down to me. I consider that a personal attack. Krett12 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What happened to assuming good faith? You considered "Do not remove my words!" an insult? I am afraid you have to think again about what you consider a personal attack. What the community has, in the past, determined to be examples of a personal attack can be found here. Chenzw  Talk  16:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Accounts locked

The two accounts user:NFL referees are stupid and user:Tekkenismyworld on tires has been locked globally so therefore the blocks on both must be modified to indefinite. Thanks! --London Thortvedt on tires (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jari Kurri

It shows notability now. --DonLandry2 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@DonLandry2: Yes, it does, but the article does need some work:

• Some basic information is missing, such as his birth date, the team(s) he played for, details about his career (besides being a Stanley Cup champion).
• The article needs more categories. The category it has now doesn't exist here.
• There are no references. Articles about living people are required to have references.

Will you be able to take care of these? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but i tried my best and i cant take care of those at the moment. --DonLandry2 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, then maybe you can slow down on creating more articles until you're able to take care of this kind of thing in the ones you already created. There are editors who can help you learn how to do that -- just ask! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC) --Auntof6 (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Formatting links how do you do this? --DonLandry2 (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What kind of formatting do you mean? Can you give me an example of one that needs formatting? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Well you seem to be helping me out as best as you can! Thanks. --DonLandry2 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider your deletion of JonTron

QD A4 of the deletion policy specifies that articles about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites can be quickly deleted if they do not claim to be notable. Please see what I mentioned on deletion review a few months back and en:WP:CCS for more details. Also, "if the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion". I acknowledge that EN has no article on this person and it looked like that article in its latest version would be unlikely to stand up to scrutiny either, but I don't think it is proper to delete an article which explicitly claims "He is notable because he has over a million subscribers" under A4. Chenzw  Talk  15:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take it to RfD if you prefer, but consider this: "notable" is one of the words we are not supposed to use in articles, per en:WP:PEACOCK. If I were changing the article just to take care of that, I would change it to a plain statement of the number of subscribers. That would neither claim nor show notability. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I am not so sure about the en:WP:PEACOCK term. DJ happened to weigh in on a similar issue just a while ago. Right now I would prefer that the article be brought to RfD, but I am also aware that it is quite silly to nominate this particular article, because it has a very high chance of being deleted anyway. Chenzw  Talk  15:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup as long as a claim is made, no matter how far fetched it is, then it has to go to Rfd. Even just stating that they have 1 million subscribers without using the word notable would be a claim. The bar to claiming is extremely low. In other words as long as the article doesn't just say "Joe is an actor." then it probably has a claim. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur that if the only justification for QD was A4, this article needs to go to RfD. If you can justify a different rule (advertising, for example), that's a different story. But at this point, you'd probably have to justify that anyway. So better to let the page go to RfD and sink on its own merit. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Thanks for restoring the article. I had to leave for a while so I couldn't get to it earlier. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

quotation marks on song names

Why are quotation marks outside of song titles rather than inside?

For example, this: "Unwritten"

Rather than this: "Unwritten"

Angela Maureen (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's because the quotation marks are not part of the title. See en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Additional markup for the relevant part of Wikipedia's manual of style. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

65.94.52.232

65.94.52.232 changed other's comments, so please change their block so they cannot edit their talk page. Krett12 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, it's best to make this kind of request at WP:VIP instead of on an admin's talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I felt I should ask the admin who made the original block. Krett12 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the same one, especially if the vandalism is ongoing. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I know it doesn't *Have* to, I just felt it would be polite. Krett12 (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

HotCat Edit regarding 20th Century - California

Shouldn't it be 21st Century, California? //nepaxt 01:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

how to block wikipedia user that uses IP address

Hi Auntof6,

Please can you explain me how to block user that uses IP address on Wikipedia. I have problem with IP: User:94.136.143.225 His contributions drives me crazy... I consider his changes as vandalism. Is it possible to block IP user without any warning ? Thank you IQual (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That user has never made any changes here. If you are talking about changes made on English Wikipedia, you need to ask someone there. This is Simple English Wikipedia, a separate project. Sorry I can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Space flight / space mission

For clarity, it was an offer to merge the two, not a statement that I was going to boldly do it. Wanted to be clear that my suggested resolution of merge was not a request that someone else merge the two! :) In any case, if I was to merge them, I would keep the name of the existing infobox and would add optional parameters that don't duplicate names or functions from the existing template (and update any documentation), and thourougly test in a sandbox first. This would result in providing future editors with additional options when using the template, but should not break any current instance of the template. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. My point was that if our template has different parameters than enwiki's, it makes more work for us when the template needs updating. If we add parameters, even optional ones, then that might have to be undone later if we need to synch our template with enwiki's (for example, if/when the template changes to use a module). We don't have to keep our templates the same as enwiki's, but it works better when we do. There's no reason a given template has to have a parameter for everything. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What about your ideas?

Hello Auntof6,

After Dr. Huasheng post deletion request, this user account has been blocked by Chenzw. What about your ideas about this? Disappointed, I feel, about my plan to create an article on Itanium and IA-64, but as you see. I would not believe Dr. Huasheng did anything break Wikipedia.org. All the efforts this user made does really improve the article qualities such as OS X, .net framework, and even x64. I wish you do something to help the further improvements towards Wikipedia.org without interrupted. thank you in advance. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier Toll (talk • contribs) 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr. Huasheng was identified as a sockpuppet. I don't have the rights to check that myself, so I can't help with that. Even if he didn't make any bad changes, sockpuppets are not allowed to make changes here. If that doesn't answer your question(s), let me know -- it's hard to understand your English. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

“

-- it's hard to understand your English.

”

yeah, you are right. In other words, you have a lot to learn to enable you understand others. But that does not matter, even a little bit men-tal something, I could understand you at least. As to that po-licy, wow, wow, piece of something! Sorry! Aaron Janage (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just now you reverted that page show your objection to me! I though we were friends, but I am completely wrong! But it does not matter! I would leave Chenzw a message to block this user account again, without any further improvement any more. Thank you! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier Toll (talk • contribs) 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The template you removed says that the user is a sockpuppet and is blocked. Removing the template doesn't change that. Also, you should not remove a template from another user's page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I just had a thought

Maybe MonoBook would be a better skin for people who use Twinkle. (here's an example). I am considering it myself but would also like your opinion. Let me know on my talk page because I'm sending this message to other people as well please. Krett12 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the changes you made at https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hidebots=0

I Assume good faith, but i'd like to know what it was for. Krett12 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. That's the recent changes page -- it shows a lot of different changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The ones you made when you had flood flag on. Krett12 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of articles that used the infobox for London rail stations had some incorrect parameters. For example, many specified an image using the parameter "image", but the image wasn't showing up because the correct parameter for that template is "image_name". I was fixing the image parameters and other parameters so that the values showed up in the infobox display. At the same time, I did some general cleanup like unlinking dates and putting sections in the right order. Does that answer your question? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

_{(Talk page watcher)} Auntof6, please feel free to refactor the section title of this section. :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Please try to carefully word your messages on my talk page as I'm getting very tired of getting all these emails from you changing it(or ask for the NOMINORNEWTALK right). Krett12 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12:Sorry talk page stalking a little here, but Krett12, everyone editing here is human. As such updating a post to correct errors and getting multiple emails from it is not uncommon, and yes sometimes annoying. The tone of this message you posted, in my opinion is hostile, and not Assuming Good Faith. Also the only process we have locally that has the right you mention is that of a bot, not even the flood flag has that right, and the bot flag will not be given for such instances. Globally, I am unaware of this flag being a solo right given just because someone doesn't want minor edits to flag emails. -- Enfcer (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

_{(By talk page watcher)}@Krett12: Or you can turn off e-mail notifications in your preferences. You are here all the time anyway, and will likely see the notification icon at the top of your browser window. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, this is what I would have said if I thought they did it on purpose:

Making rapid edits to my talk page to screw up my email is not funny. That is spammy and disruptive, STOP doing it as it slows those who patrol RC to revert vandalism. I think "Please try to carefully word your messages on my talk page" is a perfectly fine AGF phrasing. Krett12 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12:: I find your edits at this IP's talk page to be a little ironic. You complain about others not being "careful" in their wordings on your talk page, but you clearly were not careful on that talk page if it required three edits to get it right. Only (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

changing consists of

Consists of was changed on Metropolitan Community Church. Why is consist of always changed? Angela Maureen (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Consist is a complex word. Note: I think I replaced it with has, but it can't always be replaced that way. Usually you would need to say something like "is made up of", or even change the whole sentence structure. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Bot edit on Essjay controversy

Your bot added an unreferenced template to Essjay controversy which has many references. Any clue why it would have done that? Only (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No idea. I must have missed it. I was using that bot account manually with AWB and checking everything, but I guess I missed that. Thanks for catching it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

thanks for your help. --DonLandry2 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

This is your only warning. If you are a member of this wiki during the holiday season again, you may be be given this holiday card without any more warnings:

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Krett12 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2015

Merry Christmas, Auntof6. Angela Maureen (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings 2015

Hello Auntof6: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:User:Etamni/templates/Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Manunsell Bradhurst's letter

"...there came over the mouth, the nostrils, and the chin, a smile that seemed almost an effort of life. I had never seen upon the President's face an expression more genial and pleasing". --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 84.13.42.166 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC) I have just added this on the Lincoln assassination page.

Deletion of article

Hello, I have seen your note /log about deletion of article Omer Tarin, which I strongly protest as it was done quite arbitrarily, despite being adequate proof of its General Notability and Reliability of Sources. I wonder why this was done? Who, please, decides such outcomes? I think that this article needs to be reviewed and not deleted, and I would like to appeal and contest this action, could you kindly guide me how to do that? Thanks39.54.178.133 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)SyedB2015, Pakistan

The article was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Omer Tarin. Out of six opinions, counting the nominator, a majorit of four felt that the article should be deleted. You can appeal the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6, many thanks. I shall look up the possibility of appealing. If you dont mind, I would like to add in response to your above count/poll details (including the nominator) that polling/voting isnt always good, or suitable for consensus https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voting_is_evil. It might have perhaps been better to have edited the article (as I think was also suggested) and changed it, to suit your criteria. I would once again repeat, please, that notability and reliability of sources shouldnt only depend on online resources, or lack of these. That tends to disqualify many notable people then, especially from lesser developed parts of the world. I teach college literature classes, where we include works by writers such as Omer Tarin, and my students as well as other students here, tend to consult Simple Wikipedia as its easier for them to understand . Its a bit hard that even these resources become unavailable on very minor technical grounds. I do hope that, as deleter, you will kindly also think about this, thanks. 39.54.178.133 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)SyedB2015

My talk page is not the place to make your case for restoring the article. Please do that at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I completely agree that sources do not have to be online to be reliable. I have used hard copy sources myself. Please understand that when we say that the subject of an article needs to be notable, that means notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability, not what we might mean in everyday conversation. By the way, have you considered creating an account? If you were a registered editor, we could have moved the article to your userspace so you could work on it to get it into better shape. We could still do that if you create an account. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)