User talk:Auntof6/Archives/2016

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Zedshort in topic Warning for comment

Something about citation template

Hey. Could you tell me what Neptunia is talking about here? Is it still an issue? I looked at the article and couldn't see anything wrong, so I'm assuming it got fixed? Osiris (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh never mind, I see that Chen got to it. Osiris (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Auntof6, thanks, I got your message on the deleted review page, and shall write on the respective talk pages of these articles in question. Regards Hamneto (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)HamnetoReply[reply]

Thank you.

I appreciate your advice on how to edit better here. Thank you so much. Lithorien (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with template questions

Hi Aunt. Could you take a look at the conversations at User talk:TheGoldenRatio? Specifically the request to bring over two templates. I've brought over some simple templates before, but these two, especially the second one, seem more involved. Secondly, are they needed here? It seems literal translations of anything would still need simplifying. I suggested a very similar template but the editor doesn't like it. The other is involving direct quotes (as I understand it) which an editor should be able quote just as well without it. Should we just bring them over? Are there other alternatives? You can either answer me here or join in the conversation to help out. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  The Admin's Barnstar
Long overdue, I want you to know that all of your efforts, day in and day out, both with and without the mop, are appreciated! Personally, I think we should double your pay! ;) Etamni | ✉   05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Etamni! At another volunteer job I had, I used to joke about wanting a 20% raise, until one of the other volunteers got upset because she thought I was getting paid. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! Hopefully, nobody will get the wrong idea here. I've also been a volunteer in a real-world organization; doubling of pay was a common inside-joke that occasionally caught newcomers off guard. Eventually they got it! Etamni | ✉   06:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing Category:Fashion from certain articles

A while back, Category:Fashion was removed from Lingerie. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's already in the fashion category, through the underwear and clothing categories. Having it in two levels of the same branch is considered over-categorization. If you're interested, you can read about this at Wikipedia:Categories#Choosing the correct category. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Galloping Gertie

Hi, well this makes a rather humorous section title ;) Thanks to you, I discovered that we had the article Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) on one of my favourite subjects. I am inquiring about the category your recently created in which Gertie now lives: "Pages using Infobox bridge with extra". Is this an error category in which I should be removing the parameter for extra? Or are you just gathering these together for study? Happy editing, Fylbecatulous talk 15:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an error category, and you don't have to do anything. Somebody in the past decided that we needed to know where the "extra" parameter was used, so the template adds this category. It's the same on enwiki, where there are hundreds of articles in the category. There are similar categories for other templates/parameters.
I try to minimize the number of redlinked categories we have, so I created this category, which already had the articles in it. (I'll eventually get round to the other redlinked cats there are. I do a few at a time. There were over 2,000 of them when I started; lately it has been fewer than 100 most of the time.) The other options would have been to remove the use of the parameter from the articles, remove the parameter from the template, or remove the category from the template. Creating the category seemed best in this case, but I might have done it differently in a different case. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Well I would offer to create some on the Wanted Categories page, but I have a learning deficit in what parent categories maintenance categories go in. I tried one once and missed. Carry on. Thanks again. Fylbecatulous talk 16:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's tricky with the maintenance categories especially. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of redirect

I'm not sure why you removed the redirect from the edit notice talk page. The intent was so that if anyone decided to comment on the edit notice, their comment would go to my normal talk page, instead of to a separate talk page for the edit notice. Etamni | ✉   08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I was just about to explain. People normally wouldn't comment on the edit notice. The redirect was making the entire regular talk page show up as the edit notice for your regular talk page. That made it hard to edit. The edit notice for a user talk page is a subpage of the user talk page but isn't designed to be used as a talk page itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I was clear: the page I changed is the edit notice for your user talk page. It isn't used as the talk page for your user page's edit notice. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, if it was causing a problem, that's fine. For the record, the page changed was User talk:Etamni/Editnotice. I got to that page by clicking the "talk" tab when I was on User:Etamni/Editnotice. I've just tested what you said and I see that the page does also serve as the edit notice for the talk page. (There isn't much traffic on my talk page, so I hadn't noticed that effect of adding the redirect). Etamni | ✉   08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Even though the page is in user talk space, it isn't a talk page. It isn't "also" the edit notice: its purpose is to be the edit notice. It's just confusing because we expect everything in a talk space to be a talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL. Yes, or in this case, we expect that the page we go to when we click the "talk" tab of a page will be that page's talk page. I guess the more pertinent question would be to ask if you were there to make some other comment or ask some other question, and got distracted by the edit notice, or were you just out for a virtual walk when you found the page? :) Etamni | ✉   21:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, thanks for the reminder -- I was there for something else and got distracted. See your talk page for details. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you ever sleep? Etamni | ✉   00:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of fruits

Unlike En, we decided not to use the botanical definition, but the definition used in everyday conversation. It says that in the intro. Many things which are botanical fruits are called vegetables in everyday life. Both lists we set up on that basis. Now, I know better than most what a botanical fruit is, but if we use that as the yardstick the list will not be generally understood.

All the same, we have recently had numerous changes to the content by readers who do not read the introduction. It is a good case for protection, since different editors have been making unjustified changes. They are unjustified because they make the changes without explanation or comment, and presumably do not read the introduction. I think lists which are changed without explanation are prime candidates for protection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Could you put a link on the talk page to where that decision was made, so we have something to point to when this comes up? Maybe the explanation could be tweaked: I'll give that a shot. As far as protecting, I don't think that's warranted if the changes are made in good faith. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:St. Louis Rams

So people can move category pages now? Do the original titles get left as redirects, or do they get deleted? Has something changed since I left? The category has one entry, which I was going to re-categorise, but could you look at it and see what needs to be done? Feel free to re-delete. Osiris (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I guess that did happen while you were inactive. If a non-admin does it, a redirect gets left behind (because non-admins can't delete pages). If an admin does it, there's a checkbox to say whether to leave the redirect.
I'm not sure of the practice on categories for teams that have moved or changed their names. I think I've seen everything under the new name, but I don't know if that's policy. I changed the St. Louis category to a redirect and moved everything to the LA category. That should work for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thanks. Osiris (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need a second opinion at User talk:Gaynihgga14

So sorry to bother you, but can you help me out at [1]? I am going offline soon, and also would like a second opinion so that I don't accidentally start off a revert war. Chenzw  Talk  17:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah never mind, I see that Only has done it here. Chenzw  Talk  17:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need a second opinion about this: I'm close to indefinitely blocking ipadguy. He's indefinitely blocked on the English version for vandalism and sock puppetry. Right now, he's beginning to exhaust our patiences so a reciprocal ban might need to come into play. Almost every active admin has seemed to have had to tell him to stop doing some particular behavior or other over the last week or two and all we get met with is "read". Any thoughts? Only (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking his experience on EN into consideration, his repeated not assuming good faith (when edits were made with good intentions), assuming too much good faith (when edits were obviously made with bad intentions), and general unwillingness to engage in conversation (unanswered questions on his talk page) is probably enough for a reciprocal block as well as per en:WP:NOTHERE. Chenzw  Talk  17:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not seeing this sooner. I wanted to finish fixing Ipadguy's overcategorization before checking my talk page. I have no experience with doing reciprocal blocks: are there specific criteria for them, or is it administrator discretion? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Los Angeles Rams

Why did you remove the Los Angeles, California category from this page? They (soon) will be based out of Los Angeles, California. //nepaxt 18:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs some work anyway, if for no other reason that the original history in Cleveland is entirely absent. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed it because it's already in that category through the category for the team. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Thank you! //nepaxt 20:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Auntof6, could you take a look at Ipadguy's recent edits please? He is making silly threats on a school kid's talk page, and has now started attacking me for commenting on it. (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auntof6, You know that I have a reason for this, and its because it was a useless page and "" was denying it. Ipadguy (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If either if you wants me to look at something here, you need to be more specific. What user do you mean by "a school kid"? What page do you think is "useless"? Give me specifics, such as page names and diffs, or I can't check anything. And @Ipadguy: do not remove anything from my talk page again. You have shown that you cannot tell what is vandalism and what isn't. If there is vandalism here, let another editor take care of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the "A Mega Amount of History" page that was obviously connected with school homework. Not useful, but not vandalism either. Ipadguy gave the kid a final warning like he was a massive vandal, and probably scared him off. I kinda regret walking into this now. Only came for a look and noticed Alcide de Gasperi was a red link, which I fixed. (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the page was deleted with vandalism as the reason. Ipadguy (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes a page qualifies for quick deletion, but for a different reason than the request specifies. When that happens, sometimes the admin forgets to change the reason when deleting the page. @Eptalon: I don't see any vandalism in the article, so would you please clarify? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Talk page stalker) Auntof6, the page that Ipadguy is talking about was the page A Mega Amount of History which was QD'd. The IP is referring to the talk page of LeoHicks10, specifically (if I am reading him right) this diff, as well as his own talk page. Just for the history of this mess. --Lithorien (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also involved. I had placed 'wait' on the article page and typed my reasons on the talk page which is now in the tray to be deleted. (Talk:A Mega Amount of History). It was clearly not vandalism (just a bit rough around the edges but the writing made sense and had meaning). and I suggested redirecting to our article on Ancient history. But I was too late, so I have blanked my request on the talk page. The school child did not mean vandalism (please look since you can see deleted content) and this is all just more noise here. (Sorry) Fylbecatulous talk 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk page also deleted. Ipadguy (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ipadguy just put back the series of invalid warning messages he had left on my talk page. For someone who seems to make a point of blanking anything left on his own page, that is inconsistent as well as rude. (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is incorrect, they are valid. Ipadguy (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they were for reverting your efforts to blank my message on this page, which you should not have done. Please stop. (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were valid. Ipadguy (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello all, I have undone my quick deletion, and made it a regular RfD. If the page is not deleted, it needs to be moved somewhere else, because its current title does not fit well; the RfD is here.--Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"group" not specific enough

For what reason is group not specific enough? Angela Maureen (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What article are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jade (American group) for example. Angela Maureen (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word group is a general word that just means more than one of something. If it's a musical group, we should specify that. I used "band" because it"s shorter than "musical group". --~~ ~

Editing articles by new users

Hi again. So I had a question about how to not be bite-y about editing new users' articles. Namely, when I see an article that looks to be a good faith effort but is very misleading/incorrect/etc, what's the best way to solve the issue without treading all over someone else's hard work? I don't want to just jump in and go, "Oh, let me tear apart your article," but I'm not sure how to introduce edits that don't feel like that to new editors. (Yes, I know, I'm a new editor too - but I'm sure you know what I mean.) Would you happen to have any particular advice on that? Thank you, --Lithorien (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not very good at that myself, but I'll try. You could try to be sure they aren't still working on the article before changing it. You could do that by waiting for some time to pass without any edits on the page, or you could leave a message on their talk page asking if they're still working on it. You can suggest they work in a sandbox until the article is ready for publishing.
I'm probably less tolerant about that kind of thing, because I'm of the school of thought that articles should be in good shape from the beginning. The reason for that is the effect on our readers.
  • They might realize that an article is in bad shape and get a bad impression of our site. They wouldn't know why it's in bad shape, or whether we consider it acceptable.
  • They might not realize that it's in bad shape, think that it's in good English, and either learn incorrect grammar or just plain not be able to understand it.
Readers don't know if an article is still being developed, has been vandalized, or is just poorly written. Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Lithorien: On EnWiki I have applied a {{disputed}} tag to information I know to be wrong. Then I check again in a few days; if the error has not been fixed, I fix it and add sources supporting the fix. (This is only for articles being actively edited -- I would just fix those that are more inactive.) What I hate is running into someone who thinks they own an article or list and who won't let anyone else fix problems. Had that happen on EnWiki recently: apparently his airline source is more authoritative about a particular government's visa laws than that government's own embassy and the US State Department. *sigh* Etamni | ✉   07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both. Auntof6, I will try to ping the author before I just charge in. That makes sense. And Etamni, I will definitely step back and give them tine to work on it and just tag it at first. If they don't fix it, then I'll step in to correct. Good advice, definitely. --Lithorien (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full moon

Auntof6, I agree with the early close of the RfD for Full moon but I suspect you misunderstood something about the nomination -- the page is not, and has not ever been, a redirect. I think the nominator wanted the page blanked in order to start over. The problem with that is that other than having a minimal number of sources and not being as simple as it probably should be, the article is actually in decent shape. It is unclear why the nominator mentioned a redirect but may have meant something else and was simply using the wrong term. Etamni | ✉   02:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. It is definitely a redirect. If you look here at the history of the page, you will see that the page was created as a redirect. I did notice when closing it that you had put the RfD on Phases of the Moon instead of on Full moon. Perhaps you got confused when the page redirected you to the phases page? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got confused? Yes. But I didn't place the RfD notice; that was someone else. I was looking at the RfD notice that was on the Phases of the Moon page and had jumped over to RfD to see the nomination -- so when I saw "full moon" in the description, assumed that was the page I had been on in the first place.... *sigh* and sorry for the confusion. Etamni | ✉   03:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, you're right: I got you mixed up with PokestarFan! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

word spawned changed to caused

Is the word caused simpler than spawned? Is that why spawned was changed? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I e-mail you? PokestarFan (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use the "Email this user" link on the left side of my user or user talk page. Please note that I prefer to communicate on-wiki as much as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)

  The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. PokestarFan (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PokestarFan (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

commas after years

For what reason do you put commas after years in certain articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean in sentences like "In 2015, something happened."? It's the correct English grammar. It's an introductory phrase, and those are supposed to be separated by a comma from the rest of the sentence. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

making articles notable

I put more specific detail into Dinah Manoff to make more notable. Is there anything else? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the things you added show that Manoff is notable. You mentioned that a movie she was in won Oscars, but being in an Oscar-winning movie does not make an actor notable. That's part of what we mean when we talk about notability not being inherited. If she herself won an Oscar, that would show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added that she won a Tony Award for her acting in I Ought to be in Pictures. Would that show notability? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would do it. I'll take the notability tag back off. You do, however, need to simplify the word stint. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing recent death tag

The recent death tag was removed as unneeded on several articles. Clarify the reason for that, please. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That tag is intended to be used only when an article is getting a lot of changes after its subject has died. If a person dies but their article isn't getting a lot of changes, the tag isn't needed. The documentation on the template explains more. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I has the link and source of Desyra: Immortality113 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Wikipedia is not a valid source and cannot be used as a reference. If this is a real Greek deity, you should be able to find a reliable source. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)--Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) Also, please note that the cited Wikipedia project is the Vietnamese Wikipedia, and the article was created less than 24 hours ago by this same user, with no sources cited there. Etamni | ✉   02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) I put a request on Meta to have the page deleted on Vietnamese Wikipedia. //nepaxt 03:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I like the idea of adding to the Simple English Wiktionary, but I would also want expansion of the Simple English Wikipedia version of the Insubordination article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, feel free to expand it. Right now it's just a dicdef. I'm not in a hurry to delete it, but someone else might be. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing from Wikipedia


I'm am an experienced (over 1000 edits, so at least not a newbie) user from the non-simple ("complicated"?) English Wikipedia. I'm not as experienced in the Simple English Wikipedia (only 40 edits or so), but I would like to start contributing more to it. I can see that this is a relatively new Wiki with few articles (compared to other projects), so I'll start by "translating" articles from the non-simple Wikipedia to here. But, is it possible for me to cite the original page as a reference? Thank you and happy editing! William2001 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy working here. It can take some time to get used to the way this Wikipedia operates, but most of us who make the effort enjoy working here.
To answer your question, no Wikipedia page can be used as an actual reference on any Wikipedia. You would, however, need to credit English Wikipedia ("enwiki") as the source of the article. (In fact, it's a legal requirement, because it's considered a copyright violation if it isn't done.) You do that by giving attribution when copying from another Wikipedia. Here are some pages that can help you with this:
A couple of other notes:
  • Articles need to have references here, even if they are attributed and the enwiki article has references.
  • If you're considering using the Content Translation tool or any other automated way of translating articles, be aware that the output of such tools almost always needs work to fix the grammar. To be used here, it also needs to be simplified, as described in the "How to copy" page linked above.
Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. It can be frustrating getting used to the way things are done here, but it's a challenge many of us enjoy. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response! Instead of importing articles directly from the English Wikipedia, I have decided to start by just manually "translating" the page and typing it in here. Please let me know if I'm making any mistakes. Happy editing! William2001 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

when I become admin sooner or later

When I become admin sooner or later, how could I tell which IPs are school IPs? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how that's done. I don't think it's an admin function. I think you have to be a checkuser to do that.
When do you think you might want to try to become an admin? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2018 at the earliest, 2022 at latest. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's pretty specific! Why those specific dates? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gotta get myself used to doing vandalism reverts. I want to protect pages, too. But I need to know how. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you get the administrator right, you see some tabs and options that non-admins don't see. Some of them show up at the top of the page, and some show up under "Tools" on the left of the page. You also get access to more functions under special pages. I think I remember seeing some kind of tutorial pages that show exactly where those tabs are, but I don't remember where they are. If I find anything like that, I'll let you know where. In the meantime, you might like to get familiar with the policies that have to do with admin functions, such as protection, blocks and bans, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
at the bottom of an IP contribution page is a Whois link. We generally use that to help us determine who owns or operates the IP address. Only (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PokestarFan.
Message added 22:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wants to look at my RfA PokestarFan (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes on VIP

Sometimes I forget, maybe it happens when I see vandalism on Vandal Fighter scrolling and I do not see the report. I will check there and leave a note in the future. Thank you, M7 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overstepping bounds

Hello again. (I seem to be on your page a lot.) Just wanted to make sure I wasn't overstepping your (or any other admin's) authority by posting comments like this. I saw your reply and realized that I may have been acting like an admin/unhelpful, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks! --Lithorien (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with what you said there, because you got it right and because it's not only admins who can explain the right way to do things. I added my comment to emphasize that not only is that not the way to do attribution, but that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference in any situation. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see also vs related pages

For what particular reason do we use "Related pages" rather than "See also" like enwiki? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I wasn't here when the decision was made, but it's considered to be either simpler, clearer, or both. If you saw the phrase "see also" by itself, you might know that it was referring to something somewhere else, but it doesn't specifically say that it's for other pages here. You could say that "related pages" doesn't specifically say that, either, but it's the heading that was chosen. It's documented in our manual of style, as is the fact that we use "other websites" instead of "external links". By the way, if you've never looked at the manual of style, I recommend that you look at it. It has a lot of information about how to format articles here, and it can be interesting to read. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think "related pages" is more clear than "see also" as the "see also" sections of articles on EnWiki are often filled with external links, even though that section was intended for links to other Wikipedia pages that are not interlinked within the articles. By saying "related pages" it is more obvious that this means other pages in Wikipedia. Thus, it is simpler (even if this comment isn't!). Etamni | ✉   21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bernie Sanders

Hey Auntof6, when you're not busy, can you check if Bernie Sanders is good enough for GA promotion? List any flaws or fixing issues on the talk page so that I can, fix them. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choosing An Article

I think this page was supposed to be for a class assignment. Could you please restore to User:Nepaxt/A so I can put it on the user's page? Thank you. //nepaxt 02:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Stand by. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

people vs resident

Is the word resident complex? Is that the reason it gets removed from articles (for example: 1995 Chicago heat wave)? That may be the reason we use people instead of resident. Angela Maureen (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's right. People and person are simpler words than resident, inhabitant, and population. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello again, Auntof6. I was writing to find out what you would think of my chances to get the patroller right here on Simple. I would like to be a patroller to help share the load with the current group, especially with the student project in the works, and I am asking you because you have seen more of my work than most of the administrators (at least, that I have seen). I figure you would have a rough idea of what the consensus would be if I were to try - and what the deficiencies I have preventing me from earning the right would be. You have also seen some of my work to try to help flagging articles (for example: IOS 9, combatant, etc.) Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. --Lithorien (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple English bot after me

How could I get an anti-vandalism bot machine named after me? What should I do? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean a bot account, it can be requested at Wikipedia talk:Bots. A bot account is just like any other account, except that it has the bot flag turned on. You would need to specify exactly what you want to use it for, how you plan to use it, and you would be required to use it only for the things it was approved for. You can look at older bot requests for examples. Be aware that bot accounts are rarely approved: most things that are OK for a bot to do are already being done. For example, we already have an anti-vandalism bot, and we don't need more than one. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  The Admin's Barnstar
for your endless admin workPokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 11:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, no comment? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 02:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page messages

Yesterday I mass archived my talk page, and in ~24 hrs it filled up again. Why? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 02:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was because people left new messages for you. Did you expect that people wouldn't leave messages any more? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but it grows so quickly. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what happens when you do things that people need to leave you messages for. I see that you have set up your page for automatic archiving. I suggest you stop doing the manual archiving and let the bot do it for you. It's currently set up to archive sections that haven't been posted to in 7 days; I think that's a reasonable amount of time. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I thought the RD tag was needed for Scalia since his death was sudden and the circumstances were unknown. I know I goofed up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Well, that was the earliest a discussion was cosed. Less than 10min. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't have nominated that page at all. It shows that you don't know how template doc pages are used. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them! It helped immensely. Thank you very much. --Lithorien TalkChanges 02:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, help me pleaseeee.

Ok I don't know if I'm just being really thickj but I was wondering if you'd be able to move the User: part from the above page I've created : User:Adelaide of Austria. I'm still slowly working on it to be honest so it's not urgent. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. However, I should tell you that I noticed that this article was created under an account with a different name than yours, but a similar one. Since that other account is indef'd and globally locked, I have requested checkuser action on your account. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks for moving it for me. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD, help?

I tried to use TW to make an RfD for It didn't appear to work properly, but when I use other RfDs for examples on how to fix it, I can't see anything different between them. Could you possibly help me figure out what's going wrong? Thank you, --Lithorien TalkChanges 03:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What doesn't look right? It looks OK to me. I did have to bypass my cache to see the link in the article, and the entry on the main RfD page, but that happens sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was it. (The cache thing.) When I forced Firefox to refresh without using cache, everything looked correct. Thanks again! --Lithorien TalkChanges 03:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I have a random question. I put a "disputed" tag on Alcoholism and a message on the talk page about 8 days ago. Nobody has responded. Do I have to wait for other people to respond if I want to remove some unsourced content, and/or remove or update outdated content? This would constitute a major revision, since several sections of the article are unsourced, and another is based on sources that are arguably outdated. I've been told before that major revisions have to be discussed on the talk page. Wondering if you can clarify? Thank you. Fuhvah (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only people who see messages on a talk page are people who are watching the page, and they will only see it if they log in. When you want comment in cases like this, it usually helps to post at Simple talk and ask people to give feedback at the talk page in question. The other thing you could do is make the changes you want in your userspace, then ask people to comment on the result. I see that only 6 people have that page on their watchlist (I see only the number, not who they are), so it's not surprising that no one responded. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome, that makes sense, thanks. I will post at Simple talk. Thank you for the quick reply and the help. Fuhvah (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I patrol newly created talk pages along with the new pages feed. But since this article had been opened with a comment in 2011, it was not a new page. I am now number 7 on the watchlist ツ Will try to comment soon, since psychology and medical articles are of interest to me and in my area of experience. (I have already placed those that are due to be edited by a school group in the near future on my watchlist. Even though I will only watch and not edit until after their March or April expiration date.) Fylbecatulous talk 17:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, also people who patrol recent changes would see changes to a talk page, but a lot of those people are only looking for vandalism and might not be interested in commenting. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bernie Sanders GA

Hey Auntof6! Do you think Bernie Sanders is ready for a GA promotion? There has been 4 or 5 people who voted for promote, but I was wondering if the article is ready for promotion or if there are any other issues so that I can fix it. Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

word landfall changed

Is the word landfall complex? I've seen it changed in several tropical cyclone articles. Angela Maureen (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's complex. It's a compound word made of two simple words, but the combined word is complex. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Castilleja School

Why did you delete this article? I based it on English Wikipedia's version, and it shows notability. //nepaxt 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article as written here didn't show notability. It said what kind of school it is, what students it's for, where it is, when it was founded, and the name of the founder. None of that shows notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you move it to User:Nepaxt/A so that I can work on it, please? Thanks. //nepaxt 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar

  The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your involvement in the Big Reference Weekend 2016, especially in helping to identify what needed improvement. While we only tackled the tip of the iceberg, your contribution of more than 100 edits made a major contribution Peterdownunder (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia:Simple talk#Long-term abuse - I've requested consensus. (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some photos won't transfer from Enwiki?

Hi Auntof6, sorry to bother you. I've been having this problem since I started using Simple Wiki and can't figure it out. Sometimes, I can copy photos from Enwiki into a Simple English article. Other times, when I try to copy a photo over it doesn't work. I paste in the code, and just get a red link. It can't be that the picture was deleted because the picture shows up on Enwiki. For example, I just created the page "African-American Civil Rights Movement" and was trying to get photos from Enwiki's "Birmingham campaign" page. I couldn't get the infobox photo or the photo of the dog attacking the kid to come over. They just show up as red links. I've gotten other infobox photos to come over so I know it's not that. Do you have any idea why this happens? Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That happens when a photo isn't in Wikimedia Commons. Some photos are on enwiki. We don't host photos here like enwiki does. To be used here, a photo has to be on Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ohhhhhhhh. Well, thank you, I can stop banging my head against the wall thinking I screwed something up! Fuhvah (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help

@Auntof6:, thank you for looking out for me. I'm still new to WP correspondence, so I hadn't seen @Peterdownunder:'s response because I didn't put his page on my watchlist. The project I was seeking out bluegoblin7 to be an ambassador for is the same one I'd asked peterdownunder about. So I've gotten back to him and will move forward with his help. I hope I can call on you in the future if I have any questions about managing student projects or editing simple english WP. Swim123blue (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minnie Mouse

Hi, could you protect this article? In many wikis they try cancel it. It is protect for 3 months in the Wiki (en). Thanks DARIO SEVERI (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DARIO SEVERI:I don't see a reason to protect it here. The article here hasn't been getting many edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The same editor came 9 times since 5 February to cancel it, he/she is doing the same in several wikis, but if you think it is OK, it is OK for me too ;) DARIO SEVERI (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

locals changed to people

The word locals was recently changed from that to people. Is locals complex or was it used improperly? Angela Maureen (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's complex when it's used to mean people who live in the area. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a hello

hi --Soem49588 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how am i doing so far? --Soem49588 (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Soem49588: Hello. I looked at some of the articles that you created, and I notice the following:
  • The ones about people do not show notability. All articles must show why their subject is notable. It isn't enough that the subject is notable, the article must show it. Articles about people (and certain other things) can be deleted if they do not show notability, so I suggest that you work on the ones you already created before you create any more. If you'd like these articles moved to your userspace so you can take your time improving them, let me know. If they are not taken care of, they could be quickly deleted.
  • Another thing I notice is that the articles you created don't have references. It's important to have reliable references in all articles.
  • Besides that, all of the articles you created need better categories. There is some basic information about categorizing articles about people at Wikipedia:Categories#Categorizing people.
I know that's probably not what you wanted to hear. Let me know if you have any questions about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posters and details on your userpage and talk page

Hello, i am new to wikipedia and i want to add new thing sto mine. I saw your userpage and you have alot of posters and details. i am thinking how you did this. Would you mind also telling me how to did this.16chseld 408 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 16chseld 408. You can see how I did it by editing my user page. Just be sure not to change it! What kinds of things do you want on your user page? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correcting articles

Greetings auntof6 I'm new to this wikipedia website and I would like to know how you correct people's article in an proficient way. I see that you make important changes for the article example "(removed Category:National parks in the United States using HotCat) (undo | thank) that's the reason I came to you. Can you please help me?16chseld 409 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 16chseld 409. Can you be more specific about what you would like to do? What kind of changes do you want to make here? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki mirror sites

Hi, I wasn't sure who else to ask about this. When I was creating a new page I noticed that the Enwiki page I was basing it on had passages that are identical to passages in a book. This is one of those online Google Books where it's hard to tell if the book was ever actually published or is just an online book. In the Help pages it says to make sure something is not a Wiki mirror site before you tag a page for possible copyright violation. I have no idea if online Google Books ever take content from Wikipedia. Do you think I should tag the page? I've never had this problem before and don't know what to do. Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fuhvah: Usually the best first place to ask is the talk page of the suspect article. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks Jim.Fuhvah (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fuhvah: It's OK to ask a specific user, or ask at Simple talk. If you ask on an article talk page, it's best to say something at Simple talk so that people will see your question.
As for your question, let me first say that online books can also be copyrighted and are considered "published". Google Books itself is not a Wiki mirror site, and I would be very surprised if any of the individual books there were mirrored from Wikipedia. Your best bet is to look for a copyright notice in the specific book(s) involved. Unless you see something that says a book's content is available for use under the licenses we use here, I wouldn't directly copy text except as a brief quote. Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that is what I suspected, but wanted to make sure. I will look for a copyright notice. Thanks. Fuhvah (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amazingly, in this case, the book seems to have plagiarized the Wiki page. There is tiny print at the end of the Google Book preview that cites Wiki pages and all the contributors to each page, and says the info was used under the Creative Commons License. I can't believe that makes it ok to copy verbatim from a Wiki page without quotations, but whatever, now I'm glad I didn't tag the page!! Thanks again Fuhvah (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fuhvah: Actually, it's not plagiarism: that's exactly how our licenses work. Anything on Wikimedia sites can be freely used anywhere for any purpose as long as credit is given. Anyone contributing to the sites agrees to that when they create the content. That goes for articles on the Wikipedias, media on Wikimedia Commons, and everything on all the other Wikimedia sites. It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves of that now and then. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Starting Line

Hello. I don't know why you delete The Starting Line. They were well known in 2002 and one of his albums is considered "iconic" in the genre they play (pop-punk). Look about them on Google. I'm sorry for my bad english, I'm practicing. Greetings. --Blimcore (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blimcore: I deleted it because nothing in the article said why they were notable, according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Each article here needs to include something to show notability. If you read the page I linked above, it explains what is required. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty categories–especially, empty Babel categories

Hi, Auntof6. As you know, I'm a sysop over at Ladino Wikipedia. I'm trying to clean things up, and one of the things I'm trying to clean up is empty categories. Since I know you do a lot of category work here, I wanted to pick your brain a bit. Here are a couple of questions:

  • Are there any bots (or similar) that can do mass search and deletion of empty categories?
  • Is it worth bothering to delete empty Babel categories, especially if either a bot or a new user may recreate them in the future?
  • Does one need discussion and consensus to delete an empty category?

Many thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Steven. Thanks for your questions. Here are my answers:
  • There's no bot I know of that finds empty categories. There is Special:UnusedCategories, which is refreshed regularly. I check all those once in a while, but rarely find any that should be deleted. We wouldn't want a bot to delete all empty categories: it's normal for some categories to be empty, including category redirects and many maintenance categories.
  • Babel categories: do you mean the ones under Category:User languages? If they're really empty, without even a template in them, I suppose we could delete them. Do you have an example of one you think could be deleted?
  • There is a quick deletion option for empty categories. However, if you have a significant number of categories in mind for deletion (either specific ones or any that fit certain criteria), it would be good if you run that by someone first, especially if they're not content categories. If an admin agrees they should be deleted, he or she might do it without making you go through the process of QD'ing them.
Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It helps.
Using lad:Special:UnusedCategories, I have 463 such categories, of which all but 6 are of the form
[[Category:User langcode-level]]. They were usually created by bots in 2006, and have not been edited since except by bots managing iw links.
I also have a great number of unused Babel userboxes. In principle, these are now obsolete because of the Babel parser function. Of course, many such templates are in use, because there are a lot of people who have never changed their userpages from the Babel template form ({{Babel|...}}) to the parser function form ({{#babel:...}}).
But I'm thinking to delete empty categories first. I'm the admin, so I can do this without running a QD first. And I probably wouldn't delete any language-level category where even one speaker of the language exists at any level. But there are still a great many I could delete. Unless I'm understanding you wrong, the only way to do this is a long, tedious, manual process. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my answers were for this wiki. I don't know the policies of ladwiki. I wouldn't consider the language userboxes obsolete just because the Babel parser function exists, unless there is a policy to use only that function and everything gets converted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help please.

Yo. Just had a go at making this page here and thought I'd ask if you were able to sort out the template thing for me? It doesn't seem to be showing the correct age of death. And I can't work it out for my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had the template parameters in the wrong order. They always go in the same order in the template, no matter what order they display in. You can always look at the template to see the instructions. By the way, the article needs some simplifying. It might help to look at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, again. Just did a little page about a brother of the above which can be seen here, same issue again. The age is not showing his proper age and I'm really losing patience. I thought I'd ask if you could sort him out for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed it. Please look at the documentation for the template so you can see how to do it. I also noted the following:
  • I removed some extra blank lines. You only need one blank line at a time in most places.
  • If an article has references, it is not enough to code just the "References" section heading. You also need to code the {{reflist}} template to make sure the references appear in the right place.
Also, when you leave a message on a talk page, please sign it by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to hide a particular thing

How to hide a particular thing and not the other which comes after.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking. Can you give me an example? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If i make a long list article, some will see it and get tensed of the long list. we can hide it and if they want see it. they must click on "show". My question is how to hide a particular list of my wikiproject india, without hiding other letters.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think what you want is the template {{hidden}}. The template documentation gives examples of how to use it. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me, (Again)

Hello again. I just did this page here and yet again, the template will not cooperate with me. Could you sort it out for me please? Sorry and thanks for your time.

You have the numbers in the wrong order in both the {{birth date}} template and the {{death date and age}} template. The order in the birth template is birth year, birth month, birth day. The order in the death template is death year, death month, death day, birth year, birth month, birth day. I'll let you fix them yourself so thst you get the practice. You can always look at the template documentation if you need a reminder. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

evacuate from vs had to leave

Evacuate from was changed to had to leave. Why is that? Is evacuate from complex? Tell me please. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's complex. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Wiki tamil 100/Wikiproject India

Namaste! Thank you for the invitation. I've never felt the need to belong to a WikiProject in order to contribute to a subject area, so I will not join at this time. I wish you success with the project. You might want to announce it at Simple talk so that more people can learn about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can help me in making a page of wanted articles for my wikiproject. i request you to make this page. i will make the articles with reliable sources. can you?--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How would I know what articles to put on the list? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me in deleting an article in simple eng wiki

The article of Karikal is written as the port city in Karaikal district. The name differs there. Karikal is nothing but he is a chola ruler. The name of the port city of Karaikal district is "Karaikal". So i want to you to delete the article completely. I will make a new article about Karaikal, because it is my home town.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about this: I will move the article to the correct spelling. Then you can improve it under that name. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that you already created the new article. I will redirect the old one there. I will also update the Wikidata interwiki language link to point to your new article. In the future, if you see something like this, please don't just create the new article without taking care of the old one, because the Wikidata links won't get taken care of. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work here :) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 10:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing the from the front of Billboard

The word the was removed from in front of Billboard in several articles that I created. Is there a reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. The name of the publication is "Billboard", not "The Billboard". --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Challenges for Simple English Wikipedia

What would you say were the most significant challenges for simple English Wikipedia? What lessons could the admins of a simple French Wikipedia learn? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WhisperToMe: One of the biggest challenges here is that many editors don't understand how to write in simple language. It's not easy. You have to understand English extremely well in order to make good word choices and understand how to write in short sentences. One of the things we allow and even encourage is copying articles here from English Wikipedia ("enwiki"), as long as the language is simplified. However, many editors don't simplify enough, if at all. Some editors try just deleting parts of sentences, but if you're not careful that can end up changing the meaning of the sentence. Dividing compound sentences can also be difficult to do properly.
Another challenge is that editors don't understand that this is a separate Wikipedia from English Wikipedia. It has its own policies, guidelines, and practices; many of them are the same as enwiki, but some are not. We often have people come here who are used to enwiki and start doing the same things here that they're used to, only to find out that some of the things they're doing aren't wanted here. I keep a list of some of these things at User:Auntof6/Things I would like Wikipedia editors to know#Things we do here that might be different from other Wikis. Feel free to look at that and ask any questions you might have.
Those are a couple of big challenges we have. If I think of others, I'll let you know. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger of Video game genre

Hello Auntof6, the merger of the two articles Video game genre and Video game genres would be amazing, as the infobox for video games has a part called Genre(s) leads to Video game genre , While Video game genres goes in to greater detail. Thank you Lolcats20 (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you want from me, but that sounds reasonable. You could also change Video game genres to List of video game genres and keep it. Enwiki has both articles, so we could, too. Whichever you do, make sure that the Wikidata links are correct and that they don't point to a redirect. Both articles could use more info in them, too: the newer article is only a dicdef. I also see that it's not categorized, so you could take care of that, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have Moved Video game genres to List of video game genres, but I appear to be unable to redirect Video game genre to List of video game genres. Lolcats20 (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) Redirect made. Etamni | ✉   09:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we want that redirect. I think we want Video game genre to be a separate article. You also need to fix the Wikidata links. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The IP that made that change to my talk page is a sock puppet who causes the same exact nuisances on The IP is {{checkuser-block}}'d on ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My recent edits

Hello Auntof6, I was wondering if I did the edits correctly. Manuaska (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Manuaska: It would help if you were more specific, but here are some things I noticed:
  • Some articles you created aren't simple enough. You might like to read Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia to get some information on how to copy articles from other Wikipedias. I think it would be a good idea to get a better understanding of that before you create more articles.
  • I don't see attribution on any of your new articles. I assume you copied at least some of them from English Wikipedia ("enwiki"), and attribution is required when you do that.
  • Inheritance (novel) didn't show notability, so it was deleted.
  • The second sentence in Bedminster, New Jersey gives a population number, but you removed the time frame for it.
Those are all issues with pages you created. On the other hand, your vandalism reverting is very good. :)
I haven't looked at all of your changes. If there are specific ones you're interested in having me look at, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Auntof6. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback.
Message added 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding my request for rollback rights. According to the request page, "Once autoconfirmed, admins/rollbackers from other projects can be granted rollback without these requirements." Music1201 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Music1201: It says can be granted, not will be granted. It's not automatic. However, User:Chenzw has now given you the rights so it's his responsibility to make sure you use them appropriately. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding welcoming to ip address

Hello. Auntof6 I have a question to ask .Can welcome Ip address? I have mistakely welcome an ip address. Please Reply as quick as you can.~ Bivek bhattarai (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general, it's OK to welcome IP users. With any user, we do want you to wait until you see that the user is actually doing good work here. We don't want to welcome a user who is vandalizing. The other thing is that, since you are so new here, it's probably better that you not welcome users yet. Wait until you have been doing work here for a while. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Auntof6 For your suggestion I appreciate it.But i want to work hard To make Wikipedia better so i was helping.~ Bivek bhattarai (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in at least one case, IP user, you welcomed a user who had only made one change, and that change was a bad one. In other cases, you welcomed people who had not made any changes yet. Our practice is to wait until we see new users making good changes before welcoming them. Welcoming users who haven't made changes, or users who have made bad changes, isn't helpful. It's better that you not welcome users yet, but if you do, please only welcome users who are making good changes. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adoption Application

Please will you Adopt me.?~ Bivek bhattarai (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. One reason is that, after I told you we don't welcome users unless they're making good changes, and asked you not to welcome users at all, you welcomed another user who was making bad changes. If I adopted anyone, I would expect them to follow our policies, guidelines, and practices once they know about them. You're welcome to ask me questions, but I'm not interested in adopting you. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you show me the written policy?

With all due respect, can you show me the written policy on that? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it's covered at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. That doesn't specifically say it has to be unanimous (sorry, my mistake), but it does say it has to be clearly a keep. That RfD was not clearly a keep: out of four opinions (including me, the proposer), one editor felt that they should be deleted and one said "weak delete" on the templates (but keep the category). That's sort of 1.5 opinions for deleting and 2.5 for keeping. To be clearly a keep, it needs a wider margin than that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I understand your perspective. That said, I felt that the result was a clear keep in that we had reached T+20 days after the scheduled closing date without a clear consensus to delete. And that was especially true in light of the explicit discussions both on that page and at WP:AN. It felt to me that everyone was reaching the conclusion that there was no consensus to delete. You are always particular about the rules, and I do respect that. But I also think there is something to be said for unblocking a logjam and moving on, and I think there was even room for an interpretation of the rules to allow me to do that here. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having no consensus is not a clear result, it's a mixed result. To be clear, the opinions need to be greatly in favor of one option or the other. The amount of time that has passed does not affect that. I don't think this was a logjam; there was no compelling reasons to get this closed quickly. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deaths in August 2015

Hey Auntof6 I need some backup. Some IP user is adding his mother into the page so I reverted it but he continues to undo my edits. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it was only three edits, they were all within a few minutes, and it has now been almost half an hour since the last edit. Maybe he/she is finished trying, but let me know if it continues. I don't think protection is called for yet. I recommend leaving a polite message on the user's talk page, just in case he/she honestly believes the page is a general page for obituaries. If it continues, we couldn't block the user if no messages have been left. I'd leave a custom message, not one of the automated ones. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't asking for a protection on the page, but just to help me write something on his/her talk pager because I've never done it before and since you're the expert I came to you. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point I'd probably wait to see if it happens again, but you could write something like this:
"Hello. I noticed that you added information about your mother's death to the page Deaths in August 2015. I send my sincere condolences for your loss. You probably didn't know, but each entry on pages like Deaths in August 2015 requires a reference from a reliable source, and some indication of why the person was notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. I realize that every mother is notable to her family, but on Wikipedia we have a stricter definition of notability. If your mother meets that definition, then please add her information again with a reliable source and something about what made her notable (according to Wikipedia's definition of notability). Feel free to ask if you have any questions about this or any of Wikipedia's other policies. Thank you."
How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very nicely done.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have my moments! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

House of Natoli

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

@Prof.John Fox: The page was the same as text at That page links to an article at English Wikipedia as its source, but there is no article with that text at English Wikipedia. Since that page says it is published under the GNU Free Documentation License, I can restore it. However, there is an issue with it: the text is not simple enough for this Wikipedia. It would need to be simplified. I will restore it to your userspace so that you can work on simplifying it. The page Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia explains how to simplify text. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have restored the article. It is now at User:Prof.John Fox/House of Natoli. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am the original author of that text: reported. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I ask you to restore the page completely. I take full responsibility for declaring that the text is mine alone, obviously with the use of the sources listed in the footnotes. thank you. --Prof.John Fox (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your authorship is not in question. There are two issues. The first is copyright, which I am satisfied is not a problem as I originally thought. The second issue is whether the text is appropriate for this Wikipedia. It is not appropriate for this Wikipedia, because it is not simple enough. It would be fine for English Wikipedia, but articles here on Simple English Wikipedia must be written in simple language, which this is not. I gave you a link to a page that explains how to simplify text. Please look at that and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback by PokestarFan

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

PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 01:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you prefer multiple reasons to be specified?

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

To answer the question in your heading, I have no preference about how many QD reasons are specified. If you specify more than one, then if an admin looks at it and thinks one doesn't apply, then he/she can use one of the others. We often don't use the specified reason anyway.
To me, this article was borderline, so I decided to decline the QD. I'd have no objection to your taking it to RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing certain years from song articles

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

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

category change

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

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

Editing archives

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

Archives of any kind should not be edited, except to archive more info. It's understood that things on archive pages can become out of date. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. System messages I've seen in some places (here and at enwiki) imply that fixing links after page moves is at minimum allowable, notwithstanding the general rule on not editing archives. But I'll note that the system messages imply that, they don't state it explicitly, so perhaps I am overreading the instructions. In any event, certainly these are your archives, and you're entitled to manage them as you see fit. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the one you changed was my talk page archive, but other archives shouldn't be changed, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, see Help:Archiving a talk page, and particularly the section Advantages of cut and paste. This explicitly says that archives can be edited lightly for clarity. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marion Lambert COD

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

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

ENwiki question

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

I don't like to see that. Eventually, at least in theory, there would be an article here on the subject, and we'd want the link to be to that article. If we link to the enwiki article and the article gets created here later, we aren't likely to find all the enwiki links to change them. Also, if we have enwiki links instead of red links, we can't see that we need the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks. Krett12 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please make yourself flood flag?

You seem to be doing a lot of editing on those school essays. Krett12 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I am assuming good faith. It just makes it a little hard to read Krett12 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am editing a number of them, but I'm not doing enough to need the flood flag. There are only about 20 altogether, and I'm not editing all of them. The threshold we've used before for needing the flood flag is around 100 of the same kind of edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, alright. It's not *that* bad. Krett12 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me update

Hillary Clinton has won the nomination and I was wondering if I can have your help to update her page and the 2016 Democratic Primary articles. I'll do the 2016 election page and Bernie Sanders and Donald trump. Thanks --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: Actually, she has not yet won the nomination. The nomination is decided at the Democratic Party's convention, which will be held later this year. She might have gotten enough delegates to get the nomination, but that is not the same as getting the nomination. Funny things happen at the conventions: we can't be sure at this point. If you have made any changes saying that she has won the nomination, please undo them. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After I wrote the above, I saw a story about the Associated Press sending out an erroneous tweet saying that Hillary had clinched the nomination. Apparently someone included superdelegates in the count, but you can't count those until they actually vote at the convention. (Superdelegates can vote however they like, and they can change their mind any time up until they actually vote.) If you're intetested, this YouTube video talks about what happened (excuse some of the language in the video). --Auntof6 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alrighty thanks! I do believe in media bias against Sanders always as they never give him credit or hope. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC all said she won, technically yes due to superd. but in pledge she still needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who created Illinois Territory?

You deleted it before I could send a warning. Krett12 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was User: --Auntof6 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mehmed Selim Orhan

Hello, I see you changend it again, but if you have read about Mehmed Selim Orhan, it is the same page from His stepfather Mehmed Orhan. So why you changend it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs)

Hi, Auntof6. I agree with Nalanidil. The link right now just redirects to the same page. If we want to have the link in there to encourage a future article, we should delete the redirect so it appears as a redlink. But, if we're going to make Selim article redirect to this one, we should keep the link out. Only (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page blanking

Hi, Auntof6. I see you've restored comments at User talk: a few times in the last day. Remember, per guidelines about talk page blanking, users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page. While obviously it would be nice for future users to see what the IP was warned about previously, the IP is not required to keep the warnings up. Only (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine. To me, it's OK for registered users to do it, because we can be sure of who they are. With unregistered users we can't be certain, but I'd agree that all the recent changes by that IP seem to be from the same person, and I see that the guideline (it's not a policy) specifically says that it applies to both registered and unregistered users. It's unfortunate, though, because in practice I doubt many editors check the page history to see if there's anything relevant (such as repeated blocks or warnings) when deciding what messages to leave or whether/how long to block. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do generally restore them for IPs. You weren't actually in the wrong. Especially when it concerns block history. The link provided by @Only: is for Our user page policy does not have that provision. Instead ours treats IP talk pages with the following. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nelson Mandela

If you see the history you'll see a lot of vandalism on the article done by unregistered users. Would the article quality for some sort of protection. Like example Trump and Clinton are protected until November, something like that for the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's warranted. The Trump and Clinton pages were getting vandalism related to their campaigns, so it makes sense to protect them until the campaigns are over in November. There's no similar thing going on about Mandela as far as I know, and it isn't getting as much vandalism. The standard for this kind of protection is to protect a page if we can't keep up with the amount of vandalism it's getting. I think we're keeping up with vandalism on the Mandela page just fine.
That being said, this is only my opinion. If you want to actually ask for protection, as opposed to asking for an opinion about it, you could ask at WP:AN. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gulf of Eilat / Gulf of Aqaba

look in the map and see that the city of Eilat is in the edge of the gulf in the most northern point. פארוק (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@פארוק: Why are you asking me to do this? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Becuse the correct name should be: Gulf of Eilat פארוק (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
פארוק, I'm afraid that in English the ordinary name is Gulf of Aqaba. And remember, I'm pretty much on your side. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And someone here is insists to called it Aqaba after i create this under the name "Eilat" , despite it does not matter really. פארוק (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See en:WP:COMMONNAME, which is also a policy here. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Golan Heights

And by the way my friend. the Golan Heights was a Jewish from the biblical period before the Arab invation. פארוק (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

word deaths removed from article

The word deaths was removed from an article about the 2003 European heat wave. For what particular reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saying that people died is simpler and more straightforward than saying that there were deaths.
There was one other thing I meant to mention about this article. Your version said "It was combined with droughts". The enwiki version said "the heat wave... combined with drought". When you add the word "was" the way you did, it changes the sentence to a phrasing that implies that it was done deliberately, which of course it wasn't. You need to be very careful when you reword things like that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My page

Could you please semi protect my userpage for 2 days (with only autoconfirmed users to edit). That's per my request. Thanks and feel free to leave me a talkpage on my page! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 17:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LaurenCox600: Done, but why only two days? The page hasn't been vandalized, and it can be permanent if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand but it is my request though. I want it protected because I want it protected. 2 days should be fine even though my page was not vandalized. Thanks for doing it though! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, no need to be snippy. I was just trying to minimize work for admins in case you want it protected again in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there. So I came on and was noticing a pattern that concerns me, and wanted to see your thoughts on it. This particular user LaurenCox600 seems to be acting a lot like Krett12/Computer Fizz in behavior. This behavior includes sarcastic edit summaries, admin-like behavior, and reliance on tools specifically for "vandal fighting" with minimal content creation. In addition, her account first edited on 24 June 2016, which is the exact same date that Computer Fizz stopped. I was going to ask for a CheckUser, but I wasn't sure if there was enough disruptive behavior to justify asking for one. I would like to know if you think there's strong enough evidence to ask, or if it would be a waste of time and resources to do? Thank you, Lithorien TalkChanges 19:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I hadn't quite figured out who that user was resembling, but it did occur to me that the user was claiming to be new, but knew the ropes. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where not the same user. Period! Lithorien, just because I created the account was created on June 24 doesn't mean I am the same user as them. I'm glad you didn't told CU. Incase anyone wants to know about me:
  1. I am NOT related to Krett12 or Computer Fizz and I don't know who they even are.
  2. I am not acting like a admin and saying stuff like "oh I'm going to block you". no that's NOT what I say. The IPs who harrased me were acting like admins and making stupid edit summaries.
  3. My edit summary's are NOT sarcastic and I don't lie in these edit summaries.
  4. I am NOT Krett12 or Computer Fizz.
  5. I am reverting vandalism, NOT disrupting this place.
And StevenJ81, just because I resemble someone doesn't mean I am related to them. I don't even know who they are. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) I agree with Lithorien, the behaviour evidence does indicate that there's something fishy here. On Auntof6 talk page alone, Computer Fizz suddenly comments right after User:LaurenCox600 made a comment. I would suggest a CU investigation on LaurenCox600 and Computer Fizz. To LaurenCix600, I will say calm down, if you are not a sock, you have nothing to worry about. If you are not a sock, you should welcome getting cleared of such suspicions. Cheers, — MBlaze Lightning 04:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's end this discussion, at least on my talk page.

@Lithorien: I try not to draw this kind of conclusion. If you think there's cause, ask for a checkuser service at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. I don't have the checkuser right, so I can't do that. Without evidence, we don't assume that two users are the same person.

@StevenJ81: I believe this user has experience on enwiki. That would explain her knowing "the ropes".

@Computer Fizz: Please do not shout on my talk page. I'm not going to take any action because I can't, so there's no need to argue here. You might want to watch Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to see if a checkuser service request is made.

@MBlaze Lightning: See my comments to Lithorien.

And finally, @LaurenCox600:

  • You also had some inappropriate edit summaries. See the edit summaries at [2], [3], [4]*, [5]*, and [6]*. Those last three, the ones with asterisks, were for warnings that also contained some inappropriate content. Being harassed is not an excuse for that. Just report the harassers and let the admins take care of it. It also doesn't help to complain that people are hurting your feelings. The harassers won't care, and hurting people's feelings isn't an actionable offense.
  • Even if you are not the editors people are comparing you to, the fact that they see similarities with editors who have caused issues in the past should tell you that people have problems with your work here. Try to learn from that.

Now all of you, stop fighting on my talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nailed it now let's close this discussion and not talk about it anymore. Auntof6 feel free to send a a warning about personal attacks. Thanks and I'm closing this discussion. Regards, --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 05:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not need your permission to give warnings. If any warnings were given for any of this, you would get some of them yourself.
  • You cannot close a discussion on another user's talk page. If we need to talk about this again, we will talk about it again.
Please stop acting as though you are in charge of everything. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First off I never said I was going to warn you. Second I was closing this so people can stop talking bad about me. How am I acting in charge of everything if I don't say stuff like "oh I'm going to block you"? --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 12:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I promise you that it was a coincidence. I actually haven't been on Wikipedia in a week or two. As for toolbased editing and acting like an admin, I *used* to do that, but not anymore. 2601:1C0:4500:FA:21D7:6CC3:84BA:2BBB (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2016 Stanley Cup Finals

Could you or Rus help me expand 2016 Stanley Cup Finals, an article I created. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 04:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't speak for Rus. What kind of help are you looking for? I don't want to write any of it myself, because it's not a topic I'm interested in. I could make comments toward improving it, though. Here are a few:
  • There's something wrong with the syntax for the image in the infobox. All that displays is "250px".
  • In the first paragraph, the name of the article should be in bold.
  • In the references section, the R in "references" should be capitalized.
  • There should be references. Until there are some, the references section should be removed.
  • You could add a category to indicate the year. Category:2016 in sports would be good, unless there's a more specific subcategory.
  • If you based this on an article from English Wikipedia, you must include attribution.
What else would you like help with? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, further discussion should probably be on the article's talk page. You can ping me there if needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: Already added the category in the article. Capitalized references too. Adding references too. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How come you don't like talkbacks? --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 19:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're not necessary these days. I watch many talk pages and would see a lot of messages that way. Also, {{ping}} does just as good a job of letting people know someone wants their attention, and does it without cluttering talk pages. Keep in mind that when you leave a talkback message, everyone watching the page where you leave it gets notified. Most of those people don't need or want that notification, so using ping or just waiting to let people see that a page on their watchlist has changed is less disruptive. Just please don't start pinging everyone under the sun. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't ping a twinkle feature? I replied to your message on my talk. --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 19:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6:, I tried it. It is better than talkback. Could you please reply on my talkpage under "suggestion" I pinged you there as well. Thank! --LaurenCox600 (chat me!) 00:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lauren, I saw your reply on your talk page, then I saw you add the ping, but I don't have a response to anything you said.
I'm going to be blunt here: I don't need to hear details about things you've done (here or elsewhere) or things you've seen others do. I don't need to hear about how you feel you're being harassed or your feelings are hurt by what you see in edit summaries. People can't hurt your feelings if you don't let them. If you see inappropriate behavior, address it with warnings or reports at WP:VIP (after appropriate warnings) and don't keep posting on talk pages about it.
I don't care that you're planning to evoke the standard offer on enwiki, and I don't need you to explain it because I know what it is. I only care about what you do here, and so far you've been more disruptive than not. Half of your edits have been on user talk pages: that's very high and shows that you're more interested in chatting than improving the content here. You should know that in the past we have banned users for being disruptive, and you appear to be headed in that direction.
If you want to be non-disruptive, don't reply to this message. Try staying off of user talk pages, except to issue warnings. Just be constructive without talking about it and let your work speak for itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constructive criticism

Hi Auntof6! You are the only administrator I could think of at the top of my head, so I came to you to ask for some constructive criticism on my new page Vestmannaeyjar. It might be kind of long, but I would appreciate any type of suggestion or criticism. I am trying to strengthen my article-writing skills, and this article accurately portrays my current skill level. Thanks in advance! --Alicezeppelin (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't reply to your comment on Commons

I just wanted to let you know that I cannot respond to your comment on Commons. Michael Miggs decided for the Commons community that he didn't want me editing on Commons and indef blocked me. So I guess you can do whatever you want with that category. Reguyla (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do you appeal a block if you can't edit talkpage? I just want to know! --2607:FCC8:BC8B:6DF0:15AD:4C27:8AD6:977C (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can send an email to --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you use Special:EmailUser to send it to them? Just wondering! --2607:FCC8:BC8B:6DF0:15AD:4C27:8AD6:977C (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because it's a mailing list, not a registered user. Just put that string in the "To" field of an email. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick question

Why does the indefinitely blocked account bluegoblin7 IP block exempt? Doesn't seem good for a blocked user to have that right. Computer Fizz (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. If you can tell who made it IP block exempt, that person might be able to tell you. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been flickering on and off, but the most recent one was by Chenzw because they were caught in a rangeblock. Anyway, I sorta meant why you didn't remove that one (that's the most important out of all of them) not why they were there in the first place. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it appears they're not even blocked at all. Not being condescending here, but I think you should put them back. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I don't know how that happened. I thought I'd seen an indef block message before I changed the rights. Maybe I got redirected from one of her other accounts. I'll put the rights back. Thanks for catching this. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are you around this afternoon? I just reverted a bunch of pages, including some nasty attack pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you've seen, this was taken care of. Thanks for keeping on top of reverting and qd-ing. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, and glad to be of service. I'm sending an oversight request by email on a couple of those items, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you *please* use flood flag next time?

Just look at recent changes. Krett12 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the frustration, but those changes do not meet the threshold for needing the flood flag. Back when I had to request it (before I was an admin), I was told that the flag could be given if I were going to do more than about 100 of the same kind of change. The changes I did recently were not all of the same kind, and the number of each kind wasn't near 100. I do try to mark those kinds of changes as "small", though, so you could filter them out by clicking the option "Hide small changes". --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, IMO they don't really need to be the same kind. For example, it's just repetitive things of the same kind. It'd be better to just see one line instead of almost all 50 recent changes.
As one of the main things I do is revert vandalism, some vandals mark their edits as minor and I like to watch them.
If I adjust my RC settings, will it impact past edits? I want to fix the problem more than I want to complain about it :) Krett12 (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly understand about not believing that edits marked minor are really minor. I also don't trust edit summaries from editors I'm not familiar with.
The issue about the edits being the same kind has to do with not unnecessarily hiding edits. As many edits as possible should be fully visible. We've had this discussion many times before, and this is the consensus from all those discussions.
I'm not sure what you're asking about adjusting your RC settings. If you hide the minor changes, then you won't see them unless you toggle back to showing them again. That includes all minor changes, no matter when they were made. Does that answer your question? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nelson Mandela protection

Auntof6 this article, Nelson Mandela, keeps on getting vandalized by unregistered users. I was wondering if this is suitable for a protection? As in only registered users can edit like Donald Trump and Barack Obama articles. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I guess, because there have been several editors. I think this case is borderline because the vandalism has been mostly within a short time each day, but I've semi-protected it for two weeks. For future reference, this kind of request might be better at WP:AN so that any available admin would see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Da Vinci Code (movie)

On this particular article, the word grisly was removed. Also, the word substandard was changed to poor. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was simplifying the article. Those are complex words that should have been simplified when the article was created. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Hello. I do not know why you put back edits by this record label vandal blocked on three wikis. But I am sure you know what is best. Regards. ErikvanB (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and who now has a global block. ErikvanB (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was putting back links that you removed, because we keep red links on this wiki. Just because someone is blocked or a vandal doesn't mean that all of their edits are bad. If there is bad information on the page, then remove that without unlinking other things. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I understand. Thank you for your response. Keep up the good work. ;-) ErikvanB (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discouraging re-creation of the deleted template

Given that it has been deleted three times now, perhaps Template:British diaspora should be set up as a redirect, pointing users to Template:European diasporas. What do you think? Etamni | ✉   08:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Feel free to do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done. Etamni | ✉   15:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How many administrators are there in Simple Wikipedia? Sarojupreti (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are currently 18 of them. Is there a particular reason you ask? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed new QD criteria for templates

Aunt, I wonder what you think of these. Wording can be tweaked; I'm interested in what you think about them conceptually.

  • Ta. Template that calls a Lua module that is not present on Simple English Wikipedia. This explicitly excludes templates that call Lua modules that are present, but calls them incorrectly, so that the template is broken.
  • Tb. Navigational template having no links, red or blue, in the body of the template. Justification: if there are not links, it's not a navigational template.

I would propose that {{Under construction}} or similar could forestall QD, as that would imply that someone is working on getting everything put together.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can try. I suggested a new one similar to your second one, and it didn't pass. Having no links in a navbox is pretty rare anyway; I remember only 2 or 3 like that. I'd probably oppose the first one, because bringing over a missing Lua module is an easy fix. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the first, there's still the matter of whether someone wants to bring over and maintain the module. Maybe an RfD process is better for bringing the situation to someone's attention, so that people who know Lua can decide what they want to do about it. Thanks for your response. Maybe we'll leave these alone for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Achraf Baznani


I saw that you removed the plagiarism section on the article.

I want you to know that the 41.* IP has the possibility to edit the website. The guy played with that on WP:fr. He even changed his robots.txt to avoid archiving. The proof : Google cache: no comment on that page a couple of days ago.

The sentence I wrote is not plagiarism. I'm a honest guy, and I do not accept to be consider as anything else.

I really would like you to bring that quote back. It has correct references. It is information. Nothing more, nothing less.

That article has absolutely no real references: the Baznani team turns everything to their advantage. That guy STOLE pictures. Please read that :

And I must say that I'm extremely shocked that you deleted that without asking for explanations, even after deletion.

Heddryin [🔊] 07:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thst text was an exact copy of text on another web page. I don't think it matters that the text on the other page was in a comment. We don't want directly copied text here when it isn't clearly allowed and credited under one of the standard licenses. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what you mean. But the text was inserted after I inserted it here. 41.* is a webmaster of
Just watch on google cache!
Heddryin [🔊] 18:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case you need one more proof: [9] Heddryin [🔊] 18:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't plan to answer, please tell me, so I'll stop wasting my time waiting for an answer...
Heddryin [🔊] 10:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About my account

Do you know LaurenCox600? She's actually my best friend but I ain't no sock of her though. I may edit the same thing she did but I am not a sock of her. Do you know LaurenCox600 @Auntof6: --SanJoseGirl6 (Talk to Ashley!) 05:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please see new changes, specifically the ongoing creation of a new project in Wikipedia space. Etamni | ✉   07:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I moved the project page to the user's userspace. I'll look at the other things, but you feel free to check them, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been looking at them. I was reluctant to move them to userspace without the user's agreement, absent involvement from an admin. Our guideline is pretty clear that they belong there, but doesn't specify the procedure when the creator doesn't agree. Separately, I would like to see as much effort put into improving articles that would fall into the scope of the project as was put into setting up the project pages. Unfortunately, there may be other issues that will interfere with that, however. Etamni | ✉   08:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was AFK briefly, but I see that one of the pages was moved after you moved it. I warned the user but couldn't move the page back since the user's move left a redirect. I see you have fixed the issue. It might make sense to salt the pages to prevent this from occurring again... Etamni | ✉   09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please Do Not Move

Please Do Not Move That Project Because that is public project not mine private project. So Please Help Me. Tiger Gang Talk 08:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that you mean it to be public. However, WikiProjects here are unofficial and are maintained in userspace. You can still have other people participate by working in the pages in your userspace.
One other note. I see that you are creating quite a few templates related to WikiProjects, such as for class and assessment. We don't use those here, so they will be deleted.
Please take some time to learn how things are done here, because there are quite a few differences. Feel free to ask any questions you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why class and assessment are not used in Wikipedia. Tiger Gang Talk 08:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't use class, assessment, banners, and maybe other things, because WikiProjects here are unofficial. To have those various templates on article talk pages would imply that the projects were official, when they are not. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why WikiProject is Unofficial. Tiger Gang Talk 08:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have the manpower to manage them in any official way. This is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After Completing moving all subpage, Please help me to improve that project by keeping my username. Now It is set as Wikipedia:Wikiproject Nepal. Please keeep User:Tiger Gang/Wikiproject Nepal in that Project. Tiger Gang Talk 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand you. I have finished the cleanup I was doing. I think all the pages that were moved are under your user name now. Do you see any that aren't? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the user was referring to the removal of the category. Etamni | ✉   09:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. The category was deleted because we don't use categories for WikiProjects. We did a cleanup project in the past to eliminate all the categories for individual projects. You can manage the various pages by keeping them as subpages of the main Wikiproject page. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to add: it might be better to keep info directly on the main project page than on separate pages. For example, the list of members and the to-do page could be coded directly in the main page. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Dame Lillard

@Auntof6: Why does the page say it needs to be in simple English? Is there any Seattle articles I can create so you can help me with it afterwards. Amin Hersheys (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two reasons. First, the sentences are fairly long and need to be divided. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages has some information on simple sentences. Second, the term "buzzer beater" is not simple. I assume it's sports jargon, and most jargon isn't simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Queen singles

Auntof6, I was going to give you an echo notification of thanks, but decided more was needed. I was the guilty culprit who added mass-amounts of this template from English Wikipedia. I really wished to just demonstrate its usefulness during the discussion. My bad for not adding my English Wikipedia attribution on the day I changed the template. I have promply made amends and done so now. Thanks for tying this up so neatly and closing the discussion. I will scold my own self. I need my 'I wuz bad lolcat' out for a while. Thank you again and now I will ping a thanks. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 16:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request

Hello, Auntof6/Archives/2016 , i am requesting an edit. Please add:==Welcome!==, at the top of welcome template. Regards, Gadri (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The place to ask for an edit to a protected page is on that page's talk page, not on a user talk page. I would not add a heading to that template, because it is used by Twinkle. By the way, when you use that template, please be sure to substitute it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) Also, adding a heading to a template is problematic. If you click the [edit] button on the heading, you are then editing the template, not the user's talk page. (I learned that the hard way). Computer Fizz (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Express Yourself (Madonna song)

When the article was being simplified, the word represent was replaced with about. What's the reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because represent is the wrong word for saying what's in the lyrics. Just like when you say what's in the plot of a movie, you use about. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. Many thanks for your advice. Regards.--Je7roi (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

restore the article

Koondukkili is a film acted by two major tamil heroes. it is a historical film of tamil cinema. do please restore it.--wiki tamil 100 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)--wiki tamil 100 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)--wiki tamil 100 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the article showed notability. A movie doesn't become notable because of who stars in it. Besides that, the article needed simplifying, even if only to use the word movie instead of film. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) See WP:MOVIE for rules about notability of movies. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes sense, but...