Gotanda

Intellectual Dark Web

Thank you for fixing that last edit of mine. It really was disastrous. 198.200.115.29 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

You repeatedly edited the page on Steven Crowder vis-à-vis his demonetization by YouTube wherein it says that YouTube demonetized him after a gay Hispanic journalist named Carlos Maza, whose Simple English Wikipedia page has since been deleted, said that Crowder was bullying him by calling him a “lispy queer”. You have removed the part wherein it explains the reason why Maza said that Crowder was bullying him and as such raised a good number of legitimate questions. If the page says that YouTube demonetized Steven Crowder after Maza accused Crowder of transgressing YouTube’s rules against bullying that raises the question of what did Crowder do or say that led to Maza’s decision to levy that charge. Even if the page says YouTube demonetized Steven Crowder for bullying Carlos Maza then the question is why did YouTube consider Maza to have been so doing. Even if the Simple English Wikipedia page simply says that Crowder was bullying Carlos Maza and was therefore demonetized by YouTube then the question remains what constitutes the bullying in question. And if those questions are unanswered, I am aware that I just began a sentence with a conjunction it was the only way to avoid a run-on sentence, then it becomes possible to label any behaviour as offensive and worthy of punishment without explanation of what said offending behaviour is. One doesn’t say Richard B. Spencer is a racist and offer no further explanation whatsoever. One demonstrates that he is racist by bringing up his calls for the mass expulsion of all non-white people from the United States thus proving that he is. When one calls Owen Benjamin an anti-Semite, which he is, one substantiates this claim by bringing up the demonstrable fact that he praised Adolf Hitler. You don’t just say this person is a bigot or a bully without explanation of why this is the case. So now that I have clarified, I will return to the page on Steven Crowder and specify the nature of the offensive remarks which resulted in Carlos Maza’s denunciation of Crowder as engaged in bullying and in Crowder’s demonetization. If you still for some unfathomable reason consider this to be vandalism then I encourage you to vocalize your concerns on Talk:Steven Crowder and hope that we can then engage in a civil discussion of our disagreement. Thank you. 198.200.115.29 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A civil discussion would not begin with tone policing from an anonymous account. Let me know when you are willing to engage civilly instead of concern trolling. --Gotanda (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia editors edit anonymously all the time. An anonymous account can be used for an entire myriad of reasons aside from a desire to engage in tone policing and concern trolling. That said, as much as I hate to admit it, your charge that I was less than civil when I vocalized my concerns is not without merit and for that I apologize. (I’m not going to say “my sincerest apologies” because when I apologize I prefer the assumption of sincerity to one of insincerity). I don’t think that you have bad motives for your edit if that’s what you believe. And I acknowledge that I can occasionally get overly frustrated when my edits are continually reverted. I also know, and this has nothing to do with you, that I once edited the plot section of the Wikipedia page on the novel The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer, the English Wikipedia not the Simple English Wikipedia I’m not sure whether or not the latter has one on Mailer’s book, though now that I mentioned it I’m probably going to check, to incorporate relevant information about one of the characters. In response another editor not only reverted the edit but proclaimed me guilty of vandalism demands that I be blocked from editing and as this particular editor had previously levied the same charge against me after I asked a question in a Talk page and made the same demand and I had reasoned with that person then though the question was still edited out I found that I could not resist speaking daggers to that person , to use Shakespeare’s phrase and after that was effective though the former wasn’t I fear I became a tad overzealous when wrongly accused of vandalism. And I am not offering this as justification for my prior lack of civility in our discourse for which I am sorry and must make no excuses. The blame for that lies squarely on myself you’re right about that. I bring this anecdote up solely because I realized then that there are people who will in the name of concern simply revert the edits of others regardless of whether or not it is necessary to do so and claimed it was in the name of concern and I suspect that those are the people to whom you refer as concern trolls. It is because of that experience that I began to wonder if someone were to send me a message on Wikipedia which disputed one of my edits in a self-righteous, arrogant, pedantic, holier than thou, which I am ashamed to say is a fitting description of the message I sent you I would likely take it very poorly. That is what led me to the realization that I owe you an apology. You are a human being who deserves as much respect as I or anyone else does and I sometimes fear that the mechanization of communication in fora like Wikipedia sometimes leads people of good intentions, including myself, to fail to register that fact. I am not proud to acknowledge that but it is the case. I do hope that despite the spectre of our poor introduction, you really never get a second chance to make a good first impression, that despite my prior failures to live up to my own standards of civility and etiquette that my intentions were good. I believe that as vehemently as you and I may or may not disagree on certain issues relating to the appropriate content of the Simple English Wikipedia page on Steven Crowder civility can exist if we assume each other to have the best possible intentions for as long as we are capable of so doing. And even if you conclude that I really am just a vandal or a troll, which I hope you don’t, you can still vocalize your qualms about the incorporation of the offensive language Crowder used into his Simple English Wikipedia page at the very least to make the case to other editors who frequent it as to why I am wrong on this issue. Who knows if the consensus emerges in your favour then you may at the very least have the satisfaction of knowing that our fellow Wikipedians agree that I’m an idiot. I hope that I have made a compelling case for why you should engage in Crowder’s talk page and that unlike my first message, for which I cannot apologize to you enough, this one was civil. And if I have failed in the former I hope that I have succeeded in the latter aim of keeping this message as civil as possible. And if I have failed in that regard well, suffice it to say I really hope that I haven’t. I appreciate your candour in calling me out for failing to live up to my standards vis-à-vis civility either way. That is something for which I am grateful to you. Thank you. 198.200.115.29 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Archives of old Talk messages

• /Archive 2010 September to December
• /Archive 2011 January to June
• /Archive 2011 July to August
• /Archive_2011_September_2015_March

Nair Article

May I know why my edit is reverted ? Please tell the reason for revert

I wrote the full article and now I am editing few errors. Why are you reverting, tell me the reason ?

Please read the article before reverting. All are facts, nothing derogatory or false information. Can we discuss this ?

Because you have put in a huge unsimplified copy and paste. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Your contributions must be simple. They would have been quick deleted. Do this in your user space or in a sandbox. Gotanda (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't know that, correct me if I am wrong. I was correcting the spellings and putting some sentences in meaningful way. Please check. Once again sorry for not following the policy, kindly request not to delete the content.

Well, now you know. Please read this Help Section before you continue to edit. What you are posting is not helpful here. Gotanda (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will not edit this page anymore. Kind request not to remove the full content. Do you want me to make the article smaller. may be I can help you make it a small article by removing few elaboration.

Can I expand it a little, will not include all of what it had.

You need to read all of this first before you edit that article any more. Gotanda (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I read, I know it should not be more elaborative and should be in simple English, I will follow that if you permit me.

I will give a try, if not worthy you please revert it.

Please let me know how its now. Removed all elaboration and made it simple.

User:Wiki tamil 100-Read it fully

I just copy the list of the towns of the taluks. Its really hard for anyone to make the list with 80 or 90 names of villages. If I left it without the list, still it is an useless article. Another one is i just copied the format in the first taluk article. In the other intro and demographics, the format is just followed. The first article is the fully copied one. The others were just typed by me and you are making my articles deleted. You have the rights only to delete my first taluk article, the Cuddalore taluk. I want the others to be restored. I have another issue, the intro and content are much simplified and why is these article are deleted. First tell me the reasons to me and delete the articles. First give me time. Just inform before you delete, not as a command but as a request. Understand them. Leave me just copy the list alone and restore the deleted articles. Thank you. Also reply in my talk page for this.--wiki tamil 100 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Another help please review and tell me if any complex phrases are present here User:Wiki_tamil_100/K._Balachander_filmography.--wiki tamil 100 (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

names of two Democrats erased

Claire McCaskill and Jimmy Carter were removed; for what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would ask why were they there in the first place? Carter has positions which are significantly to the left of many in the Democratic Party. Look at his record and statements on human rights, Guantanamo, Israel/Palestine etc. Apparently he voted for Sanders. McCaskill is definitely not on the left of the party but given her electorate where she has to run she supports the Democratic Party. I think you can make a case that some of her votes against party are highly calculated (Keystone) and less motivated by ideology. Her Trump Score looks high but for her district not so bad. Unless someone declares themselves to be conservative, there will be some element of judgement in deciding if they are one or not. Gotanda (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Cengage Learning

why did you revert this? Nunabas (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

HI, please accept my apologies. I noticed the first change to education-educational and 1) didn't realize that the way it displayed had changed 2) didn't notice your correction of spelling students. Thank you. Gotanda (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The displayed [[education]]al vs [[education|educational]] ( educational vs educational ) has no visible change, rather it was just an attempt at cleaning up the wiki markup as both render identically, however the first is just a little cleaner, the markup is more simple. Since I was correcting a typo I thought I might as well do other minor cleanup/corrections too. Hopefully that helps. Nunabas (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

QD declined on two articles.

Hello Gotanda, I just wanted to let you know that I declined the quick deletion for two articles you nominated (Association of Gift Boutique Retailers of America and National Independent Hardware Association of America). please nominate them for regular deletion, if you think they should be deleted. Thank you --Eptalon (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping by to let me know. Much appreciated. Gotanda (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts to Chrisangel23's work

Hi Gotanda, many thanks for picking up the continued complex edits by Chrisangelo23. Would you mind saying something in the discussion on Wikipedia:Simple talk which is keeping track of his edits, as well as trying to decide what to do with him. Many thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete my article?

WHY ?!

With all due respect, IP user, I think Gotanda has made it abundantly clear that they do not wish to communicate with you over this matter. This is their talk page, and the fact that they have continued to remove your comments is their business. Please do not persist in replacing your remarks. If you have any issues with the request for deletion, I recommend you go to the page where the deletion is being discussed, and take part in the discussion properly (i.e, don't just type FAKE in the text - Talk to people). Regards, DaneGeld (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Trash masquerading as notable people/events...

• Re Nguyễn Văn Sơn, I'm afraid this is destined to go to RfD, though to me the competition "Mr Global, an annual male beauty pageant" seems a worthless event for doubtful people. As about half-dozen of my recent deletes were moved over to RfD, I suppose my rather traditional outlook on the world is not quite in harmony with the younger generation! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your strong and consistent work. And, thanks for letting me know about this. I do tend to push the QD a bit but I figure that is the quickest and cleanest if an admin signs off on it. If I were an admin, I'd be less aggressive on them for sure. Off to the ever growing RfD queue! -- Gotanda (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Help needed here

Mr. Gotanda, thanks for the instructions. I have received your email on my talk page. I'v followed your instruction, added {{Wait}} on the page of James Barre. I have tried to add reliable sources available online. Though i have followed several Wikipedia pages and layout to build Mr. Barre's Wikipedia page. I admit, i'm not fully aware of Wikipedia layout and markups. I do think that James Barre is notable and covered by the news sources. Will you please help me and remove the warnings from the header?. Also, let me know how can i improve the Wikipedia page. Thanks. Sarah Ratliff (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:Aboutrika

Hello, I really don't think the language is hard. I did simplify every sentence I took fron en.wiki, and there are a lot of sections there that I ignored because they were hard to simplify. BTW, I'm not a native English speaker, I may have an advanced level, but me not being a native speaker and being able to completely understand what is written, I guess that makes it simple, thanks Mohamed^Talk 15:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please forgive

Hi gretings, Sir, I saw the message in my talkpage about the quick deletation of some articles (Mulavana, Mundroethuruth, Mylakkadu). I made a mistake please forgive to me. I will simplify and change that articles. Two of them were deleted. Kindly please undelete them.--Path slopu ^(Talk) 16:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, please stop copying from the English Wikipedia. There is no need to have two sets of articles that are the same or nearly the same. --Gotanda (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable advice. I will create articles in simple language do not copy the articles in enwiki as such in future. Kindly please undelete the deleted articles.----Path slopu ^(Talk) 12:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I cannot undeleted the articles. I do not have that ability. --Gotanda (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi greetings, kindly please tell how can I undelete tmem.--Path slopu ^(Talk) 14:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

QD option G4

Hi, Gotanda. The G4 QD option is for pages that have been deleted at RfD before. The Aloe Blacc page had only been QD'd before. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry about that. --Gotanda (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gotanda: Same as you did with Kullfi Kumarr Bajewala and Hotstar. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Reason

Hi,

I don't think that poor source is valid reason. If you depend on reliable source, then you must to delete many of article in Simple Wikipedia.Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also we can tag: Maintaining Tag. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your QD nomination of Nazar and Qyamat Ki Raat

I've declined the QD nominations on both these pages, as although they may not be notable, they still claim notability. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vermont: What claims of notability do you see? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that I revisit it, as the latter has no sources as well as it's other issues it might qualify for A4, although I believe it's better to RfD if it's borderline-claiming notability.. The first one, although it likely isn't notable itself, it is a television series of a notable entity, Star Plus, and I think that it's notability is for an RfD to decide. Vermont (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My viewpoint is that notability isn't inherited, but thanks for explaining. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6:@Vermont:Right. I agree that notability is not inherited. Also, looking at the actual Notability text what do we have?

"Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations" These programs do not air (yet).

"(either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." There is no reliable information about the channel's distribution or viewership.

"In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." No reliable sources. Tellychakkar is not a reliable source. I tend to look at it that any program that is actually notable will attract media coverage in a reliable, general market publication--not just blogs and PR sites. Sending all of these promotional stubs to RfD is not the best use of editors' time and energy. I think QD is the way to go. --Gotanda (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Seethakathi (film) is up for deletion

Hello Gotanda, I nominated Seethakathi (film) for deletion (regular deletion). In short: I think we have no ways of assessing notability, and this wiki is likely the wrong audience for the movie. Best regards. --Eptalon (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this wiki is a perfect place for tamil and other Indian movie related articles (not talking about this specific one) if they are notable. The thing is, tamil people or people using any other languages (Bengali, Bhojpuri, Nepali etc) have very few articles on their wiki. Plus they might not have (generally not) advance English knowledge so providing it here in Basic English will be helpful. I also want to include the fact that many people like to read the articles in english though they have it in their language (this is based on my observation) due to western influence and lack of translation for technical terms in their language.-BRP ^ever 09:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good place for articles in simplified English about Tamil culture, traditional or popular culture, that is notable. This is not the place for movie previews. --Gotanda (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gotanda,

since you live in Japan, and know some Japanese, could you have a look at Jimanyaki, and handle the respective request for deletion, or add a comment there (Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Jimanyaki here). I have no idea, if the spelling is correct, nor do I know Japanese cuisine. I didn't find any meaningful results with the spelling given. --Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eptalon,

Sorry I missed that. I was on travelling. But, it looks like things went well with the deletion. All those recipe pages from that user had serious issues. Thank you for asking me. Please do again and I hope I will be online at the time. --Gotanda (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Oklahoma Panhandle

Hello, I'm just curious as to why you reverted my edit on the Oklahoma Panhandle page.

--Alicezeppelin (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it was not helpful. It was incorrect as has been fixed again by Auntof6 and more complex than needed. --Gotanda (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with patrolling

How do I patrol new pages? I have trouble with this. HutheMeow

Hi! It would be great to have more people patrolling new pages. I just go to https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages and I see some pages highlighted in yellow. These have been created by IP or new users. I click the link "Hide patrolled changes" so I just see the ones that need patrolling. Then, I open a bunch of them in tabs and: click "Mark as patrolled" if it is fine, simplify and mark as patrolled if needed, or mark for Quick Deletion.

One thing, I think Patroller is a status you get after editing for a while, so if my note above doesn't match what you see, maybe ask an admin. Thanks for asking me. --Gotanda (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Gotanda Thank you for explaining to me. I now know how to mark new pages as patrolled. HutheMeow

Rollbacker

How exactly do you revert vandalism and achieved rollbacker right? HutheMeow

Here's one explanation, but basically just keep on editing and keep an eye out for vandalism or unhelpful contributions. There aren't that many frequent editors here consistently, so help is always needed. --Gotanda (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Which page shows recent vandalism? HutheMeow

That's the thing. It requires human judgement, so it isn't listed on a page. You can find it by watching New Pages as you are doing. Also, check your Watchlist. Finally, just watch new changes, especially for changes by IP users. Happy hunting! --Gotanda (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe

This page could do with reviewing? Best --Herbythyme (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

They're indefinitely blocked now. So, all clear unless /until they pop up again under another name. Thanks, -Gotanda (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated, can't remember how I left it so I'll check that. --Herbythyme (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Students

Hi Gotanda, where did the students go man ?😉 --DJ (✉ - ✔) 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. --Gotanda (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You had an alt account you used to use to teach your students with. Just gone through it 😁 and found that you had students --DJ (✉ - ✔) 21:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I did use the site with that account a long time ago. I have since moved to a different institution and no longer teach courses where editing here would fit in the curriculum. --Gotanda (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Affordable housing

Hi Gotanda I see you have added to the page Affordable housing. I wonder if I can get your views on Talk:Affordable housing#subsidized housing vs. affordable housing. Feel free to ping me. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Gotanda,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Gotanda,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for helping

Thanks for helping to simplify two pages (A Fish Called Wanda and Aptivate) that I created from en.wikipedia. I do a 'first pass' of simplyfying the content before saving the first version but your experience in choosing simpler words and phrases is a great help. Please have a look at other the other pages I created/copied to see if you can help there too. I list them on my user page -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sure! Glad you thought my changes were helpful. And, I get your approach of taking a first pass and then polishing later. That often works for me too. You notice different things at different times. These days I mostly patrol the New Pages and do some random bits and bobs here and there. Hope to get a couple Good Articles done soon. Please jump in if you notice any of my edits need smoothing out. And, welcome. --Gotanda (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Your revert on Venipuncture

Hi, I see that you reverted my recent edit on Venipuncture. The page is named "venipuncture" so that must be the first name stated on the page. Please try to reach consensus, don't edit war. Thank you. ToBeCloud (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I was editing Blood draw to make it simple. As it should be. This wiki is not to be medicalized as EnWP is. --Gotanda (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gotanda: Looks like the move you just made on that page is was a cut-and-paste move. I'm sorry, but it has to be reverted. ToBeCloud (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to move it back, make a request at to WP:Requested moves. ToBeCloud (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have undone your cut-and-paste page move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Venipuncture a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Venipuncture. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — ToBeCloud (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to move it back, make a request at to WP:Requested moves. ToBeCloud (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You are already indeffed on EnWP. If you keep up with this kind argumentative editing you will be indeffed here as well. --Gotanda (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gotanda: Tell you the truth, I really don't want to be involved in this. I am openly EDIT WAR NEGATIVE.

ToBeCloud((talk))

04:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the edit history on that page so it could no longer in any way be considered a cut and paste move. I was going to say no point in edit warring over it now but then realized ToBeCloud is indeffed already. Either way your simplified version is still there, just with the added history. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have just waited for the indef on ToBeCloud to come in. --Gotanda (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your input, sometimes trying to simplify your own language can be hard. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A little help

I see you reverted my edits, what can I do here if those are incorrect? Sun Sunris (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

One, stop being rude in the edit summaries. Two, look at New Changes. Look at an active, constructive editor like say TDKR Chicago 101 and follow their example--do like they do. But, mostly this is not a place for playing around. We have a one strike rule on Simple for people already banned on EnWP. If you vandalize, are rude, or just playing, you will be banned. Start making substantial, correct, and helpful changes and you will be welcome. --Gotanda (talk)

== Deleting the article == 

Please help to delete the article called <<Cell differentiation>>, because another article, which is much better (called <<Cellular differentiation>>) already exists (those 2 are about the same thing).

Congratulations!

Hello Gotanda, thank you for participating in Wikipedia Asian Month 2019. We are grateful for your contributions! All the pages you created help the world know more about Asia and Asian cultures. You have created four or more pages that were accepted so you will receive a postcard for Wikipedia Asian Month 2019. To get the postcard please fill out this form within 7 days. Thank you.

Cheers! Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I registered. --Gotanda (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If there are any issues, do approach the WAM team in meta. Thanks much.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Complex tag on SpaceX

Hi, I saw that you tagged SpaceX for complexity. As I am a major contributor of that article, can you please tell me what sections need simplification? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. rollingbarrels (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, (Update, sorry. I see you asked sections--really all of it.)

• run it through a vocabulary analyzer such as https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp/ rewriting with simple words is better or linking is second best. "accomplished this feat" --> "done this".
• then look for idiomatic speech that is not simple. "seed money"
• many complex sentences with dependent clauses or phrases and not simple SVO structure. Here is one at random, "This contract, designed by NASA to provide "seed money" through Space Act Agreements for developing new space opportunities, NASA paid SpaceX $396 million to work on the cargo configuration of the Dragon spacecraft, while SpaceX spent more than $500 million to develop the Falcon 9 launch vehicle."

Hope that helps. We have a lot of complex pages here that still need to be simplified. I found SpaceX by hitting "Show any page". --Gotanda (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "Butter", did not seem to be helpful and have been reverted or removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. May you please explain the revert you did here as it re-added vandalism. Arthurfan828 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Arthurfan, sorry, I think that was just a misclick. You would see that and that a "Welcome" message was not needed if you looked at my edit history. Will try to click more accurately in the future. --Gotanda (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I went and had a look. My error was that you had multiple changes. Some helpful; some not. I have simplified the page. --Gotanda (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You've rolled back some of my changes without saying why.I am trying to make articles less one-sided and you are making them more so.Please explain.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me which roll back you feel is incorrect and why. "Less one-sided" is not necessarily better. That can make articles less accurate if one "side" is not neutral. If you wish to have this discussion, please make an account. IP editors may of course edit, but an account makes discussion easier. Also, we have a lot of IP vandals on articles such as the ones you are editing. --Gotanda (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

First,thank you for including a reason the second time you rolled back Transgender.By nature neither side of a disagreement is neutral...the article needs to present both sides.To treat the transgender advocates as the authority on whether the transgender advocates are right or wrong is extreme bias.I'm not rewriting the article to say they're wrong,but to make clear that there are people who say they're wrong.I have controlled this IP address for about twenty years and try not to register anywhere I can avoid registering.But I will address where you have rolled me back point by point:

• Transgender:you 1)reinstate a mischaracterization of the Yogyakarta Principles (a couple dozen advocates getting together to decide what they believe should be international law,without the authority to bind any nation,only to recommend their positions to the authorities),2)reinstate a spelling error that isn't even repeated in the footnote,3)delete a statement of fact about what it is that some people say,with a citation to a scholar's article,and 4)reinstate a completely inaccurate description of marriage laws that I corrected.(No marriage law anywhere specifies the sexual orientation of applicants,only their sex...and once same-sex marriage is legal it is legal for people of any sexual orientation(Look here).In none of these cases are you improving the article.
• Gender dysphoria:You 1)erase the fact that there is a history of disagreement over its being a disorder,2)remove the background for the decision to declassify it as a disorder,and 3)delete a citation to a peer-reviewed article about controversial observations on the subject.In each case you make the article less informative.
• Trans woman:You remove a link to a video where views held by many lesbians are presented in response to opposing views,in order to remove record of these views existing.

A neutral article can not ignore the fact that certain positions are held by some people,or acknowledge those positions exclusively through the lens of contrary views necessarily being correct.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that "I have controlled this IP address for about twenty years." The address is indef blocked on EnWP. Please be aware we have a one-strike rule here for those already blocked elsewhere. --Gotanda (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Which makes no response at all to the merits of my arguments above.(The block expires next year,actually).--12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A note for you

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Dear all participants and organizers,

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, all the postcards are postponed due to the shut down of the postal system all over the world. Hope all the postcards can arrive as soon as the postal system return and please take good care.

Best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.03
Conveyed by Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Digital Postcards and Certifications

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Because of the COVID19 pandemic, there are a lot of countries’ international postal systems not reopened yet. We would like to send all the participants digital postcards and digital certifications for organizers to your email account in the upcoming weeks. For the paper ones, we will track the latest status of the international postal systems of all the countries and hope the postcards and certifications can be delivered to your mailboxes as soon as possible.

Take good care and wish you all the best.

This message was sent by Wikipedia Asian Month International Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2020

Wikipedia Asian Month 2020

Hi WAM organizers and participants!

Hope you are all doing well! Now is the time to sign up for Wikipedia Asian Month 2020, which will take place in this November.

For organizers:

Here are the basic guidance and regulations for organizers. Please remember to:

1. use Fountain tool (you can find the usage guidance easily on meta page), or else you and your participants’ will not be able to receive the prize from WAM team.
2. Add your language projects and organizer list to the meta page before October 29th, 2020.
3. Inform your community members WAM 2020 is coming soon!!!
4. If you want WAM team to share your event information on Facebook / twitter, or you want to share your WAM experience/ achievements on our blog, feel free to send an email to info@asianmonth.wiki or PM us via facebook.

If you want to hold a thematic event that is related to WAM, a.k.a. WAM sub-contest. The process is the same as the language one.

For participants:

Here are the event regulations and Q&A information. Just join us! Let’s edit articles and win the prizes!

Here are some updates from WAM team:

1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this year we hope all the Edit-a-thons are online not physical ones.
2. The international postal systems are not stable enough at the moment, WAM team have decided to send all the qualified participants/ organizers extra digital postcards/ certifications. (You will still get the paper ones!)
3. Our team has created a meta page so that everyone tracking the progress and the delivery status.

If you have any suggestions or thoughts, feel free to reach out the WAM team via emailing info@asianmonth.wiki or discuss on the meta talk page. If it’s urgent, please contact the leader directly (jamie@asianmonth.wiki).

Hope you all have fun in Wikipedia Asian Month 2020

Sincerely yours,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.10

What are you addressing to EIGAPEDIA

why did you copy and paste the main title from Japanese Movies Wiki Fandom thanks to you you had to make a page on Wikipedia on the wiki. Unsigned comment from user:Wiki wolfea

• This makes no sense. You copied from Eigapedia, not me. I identified Eigapedia as one possible source among many for the copy-pasted text. --Gotanda (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Merry Christmas Gotanda
	Hi Gotanda, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas (if you celebrate it)/holiday season and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to the Simple English Wikipedia :),    --IWI (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Query

こんにちは！I'm just here to verify that this "わたしは にほんごが少ししか 話せません." says that I can only speak a little Japanese? I'm gonna put this on my talkpage edit notice, and I wanted to make sure it's correct before I do! --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! That's fine！ Another way is 「私は少しだけ日本語を話せます。」which is a little more casual and feels a little more positive ~ます not negative ~ません。頑張ってください！よろしくおねがいします。--Gotanda (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

ありがとうございます！--Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

QD nomination of Dr. Julia Hoffman

Hi there,

just wanted to let you know that I've undone your QD nomination of Dr. Julia Hoffman. It was posted for A2, however the page had content that was blanked by another editor. I've reverted back to the last good version. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for letting me know. I missed the someone else had blanked it. Should have checked the history. Sorry! --Gotanda (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject invitation

Hello Gotanda, I would like to invite you to WikiProject Vital Articles! There are over 100,000 articles on Simple English Wikipedia, but this project's goal is to work on 100 of the most important articles. We will choose one or two articles to improve at a time. We will try to make the articles more complete or promote them to good article status. Hope to see you there! Naddruf (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Review/Simplify Japan-related article?

Hello Gotanda, Netto-uyoku seems to be a political movement of the (far?) right spectrum. There's an article on EnWP, and we do have the lede of that artricle. When I edited it yesterday, I tried to do some simplifications (shorter sentences, mostly). I am however still unclear as to the true nature of the movement - are we looking at a group similar to Anonymous (group), or more like en:Les Identitaires? - As you live in Japan, you are probably in a better position to assess the nature of the group. Can you spend some time, and fix the article accordingly? - If you don't think they are notable, please nominate for deletion. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really know about them in detail. But, looking at the source article in EN, there are some pretty sweeping generalities in there about right wing groups, and not sure the cited Tsunehira is all that neutral or reliable. Not a single mention of racism. Not sure it is worth the effort to bring that over. --Gotanda (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia Query

• Hi! I have a question about the Japanese Wikipedia, would you be able to answer it? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I am not active there. But, ask away! --Gotanda (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

On this page (not picking on the user, but this page has the example I'm inquiring about) what is the small blue button on the bottom right of the page? I can only read "kono peeji" then it's all kanji, is it a 'mark this page as patrolled button'? My Japanese is getting better and better everyday, and soon hopefully I'll be able to understand all 2,200 Kanji ;) --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @つがる: If you go into your preferences on ja wiki and change your default language to English it will translate system messages like that for you. It does say mark page as patrolled. -Djsasso (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Djsasso How can I do that in preferences? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your productive editing. Keep up the good work! DJéxplîćît (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Özge Karaoglu

An editor has requested deletion of Özge Karaoglu, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Özge Karaoglu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for the template.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Plummer

Hey Gotanda! I was fixing up Christopher Plummer's article for a potential VGA nom, but I also have a feeling that it may be better suited for a GA nom. I'd like for it to be nominated for VGA but if it ends in rejection, I wouldn't want to waste that time and attention where it could have gone towards a GA nom. I was wondering what are your thoughts on for Plummer to either be GA or VGA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article on a truly great actor. The language could be simplified much further, I think, but I look for articles to be as simple as possible. --Gotanda (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gotanda: If I simplified the language in the article, would you recommend a VGA or GA route? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Neptune

Good day! The article about Neptune recently became GA. I created a new section in talk where anyone can write comments on improvements. I will be glad if you will leave your comment too. I want to make an article VGA. Frontfrog (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

QD declined

Hi Gotanda. I declined your quick deletion request for List of Japanese anime companies and List of Christian film production companies because they were both lists, and A4 only applies to "people, groups, companies, products, services or websites". Please send to requests for deletion if you think the article should still be deleted. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• ː Thanks for the explanation. RfD done. ーー〜〜〜〜

(talk page stalker) How come the signature did not sign? :P --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

the words/terms just, place and close to vs others

Hey Gotanda: Is there a reason for which the word just (near west of), alongside close to and place were changed/erased with the page Waterford, Connecticut? Angela Kate Maureen (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC) ːThe changes are simpler. The modifier "just" is not needed and introduces multiple meanings. "There were close to" to "almost" makes "people" the subject of the sentence not the empty "there" and is one word. "Local people living" to "people lived" is shorter, simpler and eliminates the redundant "local." All residents are local. I try to be as simple as possible. --Gotanda (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lavinia

Hey Gotanda, looks like you created Lavinia twice. Once as Lavinia and the other time as Lavinia (novel). Thanks -BRP ^ever 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ooopsǃ Thanks for spotting that. Cleaned up with a redirect. --Gotanda (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Chalet Lizette Brannan deletion

Please kindly take down your delete nomination in respect to the Chalet Lizette Brannan article, it wasnt an En complex article any longer, the page was written from neutral points with more informative resources for the Simple English and meeting ups its notability criterion. The earlier drafts no longer exist on the En. The article is not totally in disregard to the Wiki policy. I hope you take a consideration on the subject for deletion and revert your nomination . Thanks(Mirandatalks (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC))

No. We see this very frequently with editors frustrated at EnWP who move their content here. It is not right or appropriate. It is a waste of editors' and admins' time--both of which are in short supply here. Please keep your comments, requests, or discussion regarding the proposed deletion on the the RfD page and/or the article Talk page. Gotanda (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Problematic IP editors

I too have found that a few IP editors cast aspersions, and they often contradict each other. I nominate something for deletion and suddenly I'm not being fair, and then I vote keep on something and I've got some secret business deal going on. It's quite ridiculous. They are what I might call trolls who are looking for attention and I think it is generally better to ignore them rather than get into an argument with them. On the websites I run, I ban trolls but that is not the policy of Wikipedia, sadly, so we just have to put up with it. I'm certainly of the view that attitudes like that are unhelpful but it is one of the things we have to put up with here. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, they will get tired of it eventually and move on. In the meantime, just carry on cleaning up the mess, right? Thanksǃ --Gotanda (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Annie and Clarabel

Hi, could you please give any other sites in the deletionr eason? Fandom content is available under CC BY-SA so I don't think it is a copyright violation. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ferien: Would A3 be to far a stretch? Really weird case. Formally the same parent company... --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Search result for exact phrase. Jimbo and others started fandom.com but it is not part of Wikimedia is it? Sorry if I am wrong about that. Even if it is, and is Cc, then go A3 for unsimplified and no attribution. It is not simplified. It is complex. --Gotanda (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross ended up deleting it as a copyvio. --Ferien (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Gotanda (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holiday

Hello Gotanda: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Haoreima (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

QD of Nithish

Hi. I have declined your QD request on Nithish, as the article does make a claim to notability. While "Internet Celebrity with huge number of fan following" is a weak claim, it is still a claim. I have instead created an RfD. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Question about two Simple Wiki pages and assuming good faith

Hi, recently you put quick deletion templates on two of my page (Südafrika) and (Zuid-Afrika), both of those QD templates have been declined by an admin. I don’t understand why you warned me using Twinkle on my own talk page? - Deppiyy (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Template qd

Just a heads up for using {{Qd}}} manually. The parameters are 1= criteria (a4, g2, whatever) and 2= reason. Neither needs to be tagged if put in the template in the correct order - If unnames, it used the first parameter as 1=, the second as 2=, etc. You listed the reasoning as 1= in the second slot but slot 1 was not labeled so it thought that was 1=, hense 2 times for a 1= and up pops and error category. So you either need to label the reason as 2=, just ignore the labels entirely, or let twinkle deal with it as it will label the reason as 2= even though it doesnt label the criteria as 1=. Why it does one with and one without is beyond me but it works so I realy dont care too much about it.. just find it odd. There is a 3= but that is mostly ignored (type of page: Article, template, cat, etc) --Creol(talk) 08:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

TLDR: {{qd |<criteria> (or 1= <criteria>) |2=<reason> |editor= <person requesting qd> }}

Redirects for deletion

Good afternoon Gotanda. As the community continues to try to find a resolution to the future of how we will address redirects in the future, please do not refer any Deppiyy redirects for deletion until we get some idea from the community on what they want to do. Continuing to nominate Deppiyy redirects at RFD will be seen as disruptive and could result in restrictions being placed on you. I encourage you to keep working on your other on-wiki projects, making a note of problematic redirects for future discussion, and as you feel so inclined, contributing to the ST discussion. Thanks for all your thoughts on this issue, and for all your work elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me! Best, Griff (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I find this all a bit much. Thanks for trying your best to sort out the issue. I am out of the discussion. Gotanda (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gotanda, I appreciate all your comments and everything you have done to contribute to the discussion. Feel free to reach out off-wiki if you have any additional thoughts. Have a great night! Griff (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Naya Raipur

If you get a chance, could you take a look at Naya Raipur and see if your {{complex}} tag is still needed. I cleaned up the lead, but the rest may need more work. --Creol(talk) 21:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I simplified it a bit more. Tag goneǃ Gotanda (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

comments re posts relating to narcissism

Hi Gotanda, thanks for your comments. Here is my feedback 1. Winged monkeys - to be honest I have no idea where that post came from. I thought I had created a page for Flying Monkeys not Winged Monkeys. You are perfectly right that winged monkeys is not a "thing" but Flying Monkeys absolutely is. It is a term used extensively in the narcissistic abuse community. Would you consider allowing me to beef it up and add other references? Because I am sure that there are many people out there searching for the term. 2. Carla Corelli - you ask if there is a reason for referencing that blog. Well the answer is that there is a narcissism glossary there that explains these concepts in very simple English. However if you think that I over-referenced that blog in particular, I will remove the references and include ones to more academic ones (would Psychology Today be considered a better source?) Thanks for your feedback and apologies for the inconvenience caused TheClawster (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You should go to the relevant deletion discussion linked from your own Talk page to discuss that deletion. I am not a decision maker on that. As far as Carla Corelli blog goes, it seems not to be a reliable source for psychology subjects. See these guidelines. Also, the constant linking to one individual blog may appear promotional. If a concept is truly notable in psychology, there will be plenty of academic sources which are more reliable than Psychology Today. For winged monkey, see if some of these are appropriate. Some are still blogs or less authoritative. Gotanda (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

QD

Hi @Gotanda, to make a clarification with you, the pages you flagged for QD was actually a simplified version of the English Wikipedia. You may head over to the English Wikipedia and verify as most information are obtained as of what was in the English Wikipedia over to the Simple English Wikipedia. Yosefshlomo (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The entries here are short stubs that make no claim of notability and mostly seem ti just serve as places to park external links to promote churches. That's why I tagged them. --Gotanda (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For Faith Community Baptist Church, you may compare with the English wikipedia. Yosefshlomo (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, do not remove QD tags. Use the process. Tag "Wait" if you disagree witrh the QD. Gotanda (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of User:Gotanda

An editor has requested deletion of User:Gotanda, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/User:Gotanda and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Yosefshlomo (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Good morning

Good morning Gotanda how are you? 2600:387:C:7131:0:0:0:3 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

I massed them long LTA sorry about that. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 22:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No prob! Gotanda (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Good evening Gotanda. Are you my friend! How are you? Wanna chat? Lmao! I did see one of the best ones today though:

"New page: Dear Administrators! Feel free to ban and block me for testing purposes. But please, don't forget to unblock me later :-)" PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 01:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi Taiwan visit

Because the elimination ?Vumury (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Mathematics history

Hello Gotanda, I am afraid because of the recent edits you are doing to the articles I've been creating. I don't (and I am not) want to be angry nor in dispute with you: in contrast, I want to cooperate with you. Mathematics history has episodes like the Penrose tiling use in 1998, Wiles 1995 proof, and many more who are fascinating, some of them are just short events (a North Korean student scapped during 2015 I think International Mathematical Olympiad, that does not deserve an article) and others are such big that even just an article is not enough. With all this, I try to create this articles because who knows if this can be useful for some people, to read about maths, to get informed. Recently, you redirected 2014 International Congress of Mathematicians and 2022 International Congress of Mathematicians boycott, and I can not undo them. They are 2 great articles I wrote with effort, and I wish you can undo the redirection. I want to chat with you, and get a consensus. Liserbim (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

While yes, math history is interesting, your edits do not seem to be constructive if 3 of your sock accounts that I've encountered so far have been global locked for Long term abuse. Derpdart56 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, telling on oneself as a sock of LTA makes it easy. --Gotanda (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Female scientists

Hi there. Please do not remove Category:Female scientists off any more pages. It has been sent to RfD twice and kept twice. You can send it to RfD a third time if you really think it should be deleted but do not empty it to avoid the RfD process. --Ferien (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I thought it had been deleted and figured it must have come back. I conflated it with this for women by occupation discussion. Which kind of highlights the mess of the whole thing. There have been many discussions all with different participants it can be hard to keep track. I'll just keep out of it, then. --Gotanda (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There was also an RfD earlier this year which deleted all the subcats of female scientists: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Category:American female biochemists. It doesn't make a lot of sense now because we have to keep the category for female scientists, but we aren't allowed to subdivide it. I have a list (User:Lights and freedom/femalescientists) containing most female scientists with articles (excluding mathematicians, applied scientists, and social scientists: about 170 articles). It might be good to discuss on Simple Talk but IDK if such a discussion would go anywhere. Lights and freedom (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed women by occupation cats are a huge mess in general. We've decided to keep some of them and delete some of them. There was a discussion on Simple talk that started talking about these categories but I don't think it really got anywhere with seeing whether the community actually wants these cats or not. I personally lean towards having these categories but I don't have a very strong opinion on it. I think we should start another discussion, as it is such a mess. Whichever way we decide we probably need to write it down as a guideline or policy, as I don't think a few RfDs can show community consensus for/against something. --Ferien (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not think starting yet another discussion will add anything at this point. In the previous discussions, people tended to argue their strongly held beliefs and the results varied depending upon who knew about the discussion and had the time and energy to participate. I am the same. Looking at this linguistically or sociologically from the point of view of dominant unmarked identities and other marked identities leads to a pretty clear conclusion for me. Apparently a large enough number of editors here disagree so that consensus is difficult. When the editor base changes, so will the results. --Gotanda (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Brief questions

First I want to say that I think changing "the process by which" to "how" is good in general; there are only a few situations where I would question it. So I'm asking to get a better understanding of simple language and/or to discuss alternatives.

• At Fold (geology), Formation and evolution of the Solar System, and Matter, "how" is used as the subject of a sentence and its first word:
  • How folds are formed due to compression is known as folding.
  • How solar systems are created is called the nebular theory.
  • How baryons came to outnumber their antiparticles is called baryogenesis.

Would this reduce readability for beginners? I could imagine someone could read "compression is known as folding" as a clause, because the word "compression" is next to the verb, and likewise for the third example.

• Does my edit at Imprinting (biology) improve the wording? I know that it is structured that way for particular reasons on enwiki, but is it OK to let go of that here?

Thanks, Lights and freedom (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. None of these are very good. maybe I will get back to them.

• How folds are formed due to compression is known as folding.
• How solar systems are created is called the nebular theory.
• How baryons came to outnumber their antiparticles is called baryogenesis.

I was in a meeting and could have half an eye on wiki and half an ear on the zoo. "Process by which" is not simple at all. I just run the search on phrases like that and crank through them. Still working on "located in." Those three are all in need of more work, but I think marginally better than they were.

I think your edit on imprinting is excellent.

--Gotanda (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Helping with a research project in Simplification

Hello Gotanda,

I'm reaching out to you because I am working on a research project on simplification and am looking to collaborate with domain experts.

A quick introduction: I am a researcher interested in text simplification and am working towards publishing a resource in text simplification based on Simple Wikipedia (quite a rich encyclopedia). We believe this resource, which we will make public, could be valuable to educate and increasing awareness of text simplification.

Some colleagues and I are looking to collaborate with domain experts in the creation of the resource. We've secured some budget for our research project, so there's the possibility to remunerate a few experts that would work with us.

I do not mean to spam you, so feel free to disregard/delete if you feel this is inappropriate (and I apologize). On the other hand, if you are interested, please feel free to reach out, either directly on Wikipedia or by email (phillab@berkeley.edu) and I would be happy to tell you more.

Thank you, and sorry again if you feel this is inappropriate,

Philippe Laban

You can check my previous academic publications (one of which is on Simplification) on this website: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fR5t200AAAAJ

~~~~ Philippelaban (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I emailed from my university account. Looking forward to learning about what you are working on. --Gotanda (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Folklore

MathXplore had already removed the complex section. (It was really just about Zora Neale Hurston, which belongs on her page, not on folklore.) Your edit didn't really do much except remove maintenance tags, move the reflist and stub tag to the middle of the article, and add a few words that FolkloreJC removed. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry I misread the situation. Thanks. --Gotanda (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Didicoy

@Gotanda, you said Didicoy is not an english word, but why then Gadjo, who is also an Romani word and not english, is allowed to stay in english wikipedia as an own Article? this made no sense. As far I understand, in simple english wikipedia, only english terms and words are used? Then the Articles with outlandish names like Vallahades must changend too?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadjo Nalanidil (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Winner

@Gotanda, You won. I can't argue to you and your lobby here. If you want to delete all my articles, then do it. It was a mistake on myself, to put Romani language terms with sources on Wikipedia. Our ancestors never wanted Gadjo to know our language. It was a very big mistake by all Roma that we passed on our language to non-Roma. This is not good, yet I can very well understand what our Elders allways meant when they say: “Gadje Gadjensa, Rom Romensa.” This is an old Roma saying and the meaning is Gadjo should stay with Gadjo and Roma with Roma. For centuries our language was secret. And now, am I supposed to justify myself for the term Dasikane and Didicoy and Xoraxane etc.??? No, I don't have to do that to myself. May you happy now. May Devla forgive me...I fear Devla's punishment for passing on Romani words to Gadjo's. Nalanidil (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, when you are ready, we could actually use articles explaining Roma culture and experiences in simple English with good sources. The whole wiki loses when editors either post too much complex original research, or nothing at all. --Gotanda (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Declined QD: Silky Spitz

Hello Gotanda, I have declined your QD request. Looks like an old dog-breed to me. So, If you still think it should be deleted, please nominate the page at RfD. Eptalon (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eptalon, Lass gut sein, I don't want to write anything more here. Im tired of Wikipedia.

@Gotanda should delete everything of my Article they want.

Every day the same thing. My Godness, So that's enough for me. I'm really fed up with this WIKIPEDIA. Especially what this one Sysops is up to.... Im speakless.

No, no, I don't want anything more to do here. Nalanidil (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, @Nalanidil, you've already been blocked elsewhere, so we have been very patient with you. Your contributions are not helpful. You have used racist epithets against other editors here including me, which is an instantly blockable offense. Either truly retire, or stop posting dickpics and complaining and start making useful contributions. One more, and I will request that you be blocked. --Gotanda (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Gotanda, You can save yourself false accusations against me, who do you think you are? I won't let you threaten me !. What you're doing is like stalking me. Believe me, I don't care if I get blocked on Wikipedia. I even ask for it. please block me Thanks.

As a proud Roma i call you Non-Roma simple Gadjo and that is not a racist remark. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadjo

Majority Users and Admins here are so uneducated, but they boast about other people, cultures, countries etc.. You're just jealous of me. Then nothing. You people here can't hold a candle to me when it comes to education. What behavior you have, appalling.It is enough for me. There are other encyclopedias. Who needs Wikipedia? I totally agree with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

I ask for my account to be blocked. Many Thanks. Nalanidil (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Treehouse TV...

Helo Gotanda,

I have declined your QD request for Treehouse TV. Please nominate for regular deleion, if you think it should be deleted. Thank you Eptalon (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

May I ask why it was declined? It is a word-for-word copy from EnWP. Put up for regular RfD. --Gotanda (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikiwand

Hi Gotanda, I'm not going to discuss here whether something should be deleted, but Wikiwand is a mirror of Wikipedia. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Governor%27s_Daughter can be found at en:The Governor's Daughter. If you already knew this, you can discard this message. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That was the first search result that came up. Issue is the same either way. Unsimplified copy-paste. We do not need any more copies from EnWP. --Gotanda (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

In the Rear of the Enemy

I'm not sure why you reverted the edit (especially with rollback, only intended for clear vandalism) from the creator that fixed the problem with the article. If the complex section is removed, then there's no need to delete the article. --Ferien (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not scroll far enough down in the comparison. The editor had removed several tags. I missed that they had also removed the copy paste section. They have now replaced it with a complex version instead. --Gotanda (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Donna Strickland

I don't think the sentence you added to the Nobel Prize is fair or justified from the source given. The sentence says "Wikipedia has also been unfair to women scientists." citing this source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/03/donna-strickland-nobel-physics-prize-wikipedia-denied

I actually edited en:Donna Strickland just three hours ago to clear a misleading statement about this incident. There was no article about her before she won the Nobel Prize, and a draft about her had been declined earlier that year. However, en:George Smith (chemist) was another Nobel laureate that year, and no article had been written about him either, which was not mentioned in the news. This situation is actually not rare: of the 212 Nobel laureates from 2001 until 2018, 35% had no Wikipedia article until they were awarded the prize. The issue might be an inability of Wikipedia editors to recognize significant scientists until they win an award, rather than discrimination against women scientists on Wikipedia. I think this claim is certainly not proven from this one example, and the sentence should be removed (also as it's about Wikipedia, not the Nobel Prize). My comment, of course, is only referring to Wikipedia and not denying any discrimination women scientists may face in the real world. Lights and freedom (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

When I have time I can flesh that out with more references, but you must be aware of the serious bias against women within Wikipedia as both editors and article subjects. This is not new or controversial. --Gotanda (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia. I contribute a lot, But, I will not downplay its serious flaws. Gender bias is one. Racist bias is another.

Looking again, unfair to women scientists is right there in the Guardian article.

Committee and bias against women. "The Nobel committee is increasingly aware of its poor track record with female scientists: last year all prize winners were men. “We are disappointed looking at the larger perspective that more women have not been awarded,” Göran Hansson, the vice-chair of the board of directors of the Nobel Foundation, said at the time. “I suspect there are many more women who are deserving to be considered for the prize.”

and

"The oversight has once again highlighted the marginalization of women in science and gender bias at Wikipedia." Unfair seems to me to be a simple way to describe marginalization and bias. No? --Gotanda (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does say that, but it never provides evidence for gender bias at Wikipedia. And yes, I am aware that women are underrepresented as Wikipedia editors, but that's a totally different topic. And the topic still is unrelated to the Nobel Prize. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian is a generally reliable source. That's how the wiki works, we cite generally reliable sources. The Guardian does not have to provide evidence for every time it reports something--especially something as well-reported and non-controversial as this. --Gotanda (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then move it to a page such as Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, or Criticism of Wikipedia, instead of Nobel Prize where it's irrelevant. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Created stubs from En for Women in Red and Gender bias on Wikipedia. --Gotanda (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

James Mitchell (Australian politician)

Hi, James Mitchell (Australian politician) is about the same person as James Mitchell. Could you have a look? Please ping me if you answer as I’m not regularly on simple.wp. Thank you! --Emu (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is the same page @Emu, I have redirected the page now per enwiki. Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 16:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gotanda (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

White Americans

The policy is, as I understand it, that we should use the most exact category and not put something in a superior category as well Rathfelder (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong. But, it seems quite relevant and more discoverable with those two additional categories. Is Ethnic groups in the United States an exact subcategory somewhere down the tree under "Race"? It doesn't seem to be. Pretty hard to have a meaningful treatment of race without examining whiteness. --Gotanda (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The superior category is Category:Ethnic groups. Category:Race has articles about racism. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be a larger problem in the categorization. Gotanda (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

And how should we tackle it? There are clearly 2 sorts of articles although they are related. Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I honestly do not know how we should tackle it. You can post to Simple Talk and ask. It looks like a larger problem and the sort that will draw many opinions. --Gotanda (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Working to GA - Megadeth

Hey, Gotanda! Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to know if you could help me with getting Megadeth to Good Article status. You’re one of the only other users who has made many edits on the page, so I thought asking you would be best. If you don’t want to, that’s okay. Thanks!

P.S. - I left some ideas for the quotes on the talk page for Fred Rogers, if you haven’t already seen those. Great work so far! 🤘 🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the reminder. I kept meaning to get back to it. It is long! (Not a complaint. That is good!) --Gotanda (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Xeverything11". Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

why my recent created page is in quick deletion process

I have created a page of well known entrepreneur and advocate and without reading the content you placed a tag of qiock deletion. i just wanted to known why you placed that tag i already mentioned all notable awards and her notablity.

Narkotox (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? There have been several new, non-notable pages created recently about entrepreneurs. Gotanda (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Your QD request

Be sure to check page history before QDing an article. I had QDed List of GoAnimate Animated Series as rational A4 but it got denied by aunt then you redid it shortly after again. I have RFDed it for now as a declined QD. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Admins can be quite varied in their response to QD requests. Response can depend upon who is the next admin to find the QD. You could have left the QD request there for the next admin to consider. We have far too many RfDs which take up a lot of time. --Gotanda (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You should definitely not be repeating QDs for different admins to consider. Just because one admin declined it does not mean you should try again, to see if one of our admins more lenient on A4 decides they want to delete it. If an admin declines an A4, that should be final and an RfD should be considered instead. The fact we have far too many RfDs is also just fiction as we only have 13 pages there at the moment. --Ferien (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not see that it had been QD requested previously. I was simply observing that the response is varied. --Gotanda (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That is understandable, but my point is if it was declined before, it shouldn't be left to potentially be accepted the next time as you appeared to suggest above. --Ferien (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

13 at the moment is quite low, as you well know. We typically have far more and that. I patrol the new pages frequently and you should be aware that my QD requests are generally approved. Sorry I missed the history on that one. --Gotanda (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

13 is low, it is usually around 30, but we shouldn't be using quick deleting articles that are not clearly eligible for quick deletion criteria. A4 is generally overused on this wiki, and to be honest, is even used by admins when it does not apply. Keeping an article around for just one more week isn't really a problem, especially when the RfD backlog is currently this low. --Ferien (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The admin @Auntof6: stated that list type articles are not elgible for A4. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Lists are lists of products. Products are eligible for A4. But the admin and can decide. In between these comments I just QDA4 another such list List of animated series. I cannot see how it is should be kept, and RfD is a waste of time and effort, but that is fine if that is how people wish to go. --Gotanda (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion policy is community guidelines/policy for it to get changed it would have to be brought up on Wikipedia:Simple Talk and be discussed by the community. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear to be documented as a policy or guideline. Seems to be an informal practice. I've been here tagging QD quite reliably for over a decade and this is the first I have heard of this. Should be made clear up front.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Quick_deletion

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Quick_deletion Gotanda (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A4 says is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. Personally, I think TV series count under A4 (you can buy a TV series on DVDs). Now, I'm not sure I agree that A4 should not apply to lists at all. I think it should apply to some lists, and have probably used A4 on lists before. However, with this article, it is a list of animated series from GoAnimate, now called Vyond which is notable enough to have an article. That is a reasonable claim to show it is important, in my view – it is showing shows from a notable TV channel. A4 is not about showing the article passes notability guidelines, I think this is best explained at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive 4#Barron Trump. --Ferien (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Right. I am pretty sure I have tagged lists QD before without any issue and they have been quickly deleted. That is why I did it this time. People might disagree, but that is not the same as an informal blanket ban by some admins. Maybe the admins should review past practice on QD and lists and get that straightened out amongst themselves. I QD intentionally as we are a small community of editors and without its frequent use, we will just host spam. See my most recent string of approved QDs of spam that had slipped by. I am also aware that I consider "products" more broadly than some others may. That's also fine. People may disagree. But, please just make it clear. Been doing it this way for years without issue. Gotanda (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is also better in the long run to have a page deleted by RFD then QD because if they are deleted by RFD and recreated you have a whole new reason to delete them whereas you might not with QD. Bobherry Talk My Changes 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

However, some would say that overuse of RfD is an issue as it takes up limited resources of time and attention. You might want to consider that as well. Gotanda (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter

Hi Gotanda, I simplified Beatrix Potter even further. If you think I have omitted too much, please feel free to revert. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That's great! The article really was a mess. Thank you for your efforts here. --Gotanda (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "Yash Shah"

Sir it doesn't mean that the article once be deleted should not be recreated. The article that I had made it is proper. Yes it should required some help from experience Wikipedian like you. So it an humble request that please remove the notice of deletion.

Regards

Vikuvshah Vikuvshah (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Dermocystida

Hi, with this article, it isn't eligible for A1 because it did have some useful content in. But, I have expanded it a bit, please let me know if there are still issues with it – other than the categories, which I'm going to work out another day... --Ferien (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

request for assistance

Hi Gotanda, I am happy to see you are looking at my articles. I recently created Judy Chicago. It has subsequently received a tag requesting that it contain more sections. I keep going back to it and looking, and not quite figuring out how to divide it up. Do you have any thoughts? I am new to Simple Wiki so I would really like some help with the basics. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand your puzzlement. The article is very short. But, as requested by another editor, I added some sections that I think follow what is typical. I really appreciate you adding these articles here. It is very necessary. Happy to help if I can. Unfortunately, as I am sure you are already more than well aware, your work is going to continue to attract some scrutiny. It should settle down over time, I hope. --Gotanda (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you. Thank you for editing Judy Chicago! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have noted your improvements and will try to incorporate the style going forward. Scrutiny welcome :) --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Algal Lake

I'm not going to process this one, because I felt it was not figured in the same way in Cape Evans, which is the En wiki page. You could take it to RfD. I think we should have a version of Cape Evans, but even so the En wiki page is pretty sketchy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The author rewrote it, and now it lools pretty simple. As a geographical feature, it likeyl is notable: Problem though: It is in Antartica, so whas there anyone there, since the expeditions in the 1950s? - Anyway, please file an RfD, if you think it should be deleted. Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The rewrite is pretty minor and introduced two errors. I'll take it up with the editor rather than RfD. But, thanks for clearing out the other copies. --Gotanda (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Your QD request on Murders of Linda Gibson and Cody Lee Garrett

Hi, Gotanda. I declined your QD request on this page because option A4 does not apply to events (in this case, murders). The article is about the murders, not about the people specifically. Feel free to go to RFD, though. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Done. --Gotanda (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Vakalo College

I have reviewed the request and declined to delete the page. It appears to be an internationally accredited college that offers real undergraduate and graduate degrees via the University of Derby in the UK. Please take the issue to RfD if this is not acceptable. fr33kman 00:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I may. Accreditation is usually by a third-party agency. Approval from Derby University is not the same as accreditation. The editor has created several related articles which are quite promotional in tone, which is what attracted my attention. Maybe better to just tone down the content. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best place for it. I just think it's not suitable for QD because a) they asserted notability (i.e.: they said it was notable) and b) it did not fit the usual advertising type page. This is the problem with further-education and higher-education institutions that get their diplomas or degrees from another country. There are medical schools that hold their classes in London but get their degrees from another country and are certainly not British medical schools, for instance. It's hard to know if their own countries recognize them or not. I've come across doctors at work who got one of these types of degrees and are only practicing because they wrote the exams needed in a recognized fashion. fr33kman 02:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Russchen Wytze

Which Wikipedia is this a cut and paste from? Thanks fr33kman 00:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytze_Russchen --Gotanda (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, the reversal of the name threw me. Thanks! :) fr33kman 00:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian war revert seems unjustified

In this diff: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Ukrainian_War&diff=prev&oldid=9166972 I removed a claim that was uncited, and had had a [[citation needed]\] for over a year. The claim itself used W:EN:WP:Weasel which while it is an English policy and not technically a Simplish policy I don't see any reasonable justification for weasel words to be permitted here. My revert was a goodfaith removal of a unsourced claim written in non-encyclopediac language that had gone for over a year without being cited, and that when I looked for W:EN:WP:RS there were none I could find. This was an open and shut revert. I really don't want to get into a W:EN:WP:WAR so I am looking for an explanation and civil discussion here instead. I'd like to know what I did wrong, why my revert was not an appropriate or positive change to the article, so that I can become a better editor in the future. HolmKønøman (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I gave the reason in my edit summary and repeat it here, "Add the cite. Don't delete." This wiki has few editors, so some tags such as citation needed will last longer here than elsewhere. It has commonly been reported that Putin does wish just this. It has been reported based on his manifestos and speeches. "Weasel words" removed and cite added. IN the future, please add citations rather than removing. --Gotanda (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. In the future I will check for proper citations before removing, but if there are no RS for the claim I will still remove it.

HolmKønøman (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Civil parish and redirects

Hi. I've noticed the general topic of Civil Parishes is a little bit of a mess. Civil Parishes in England has a hatnote leading to "Civil Parish (Disambiguation)", which is a redlink, and said hatnote states that the page "Civil Parish" redirects to "Civil Parishes" in england. I also noticed there are no links to Civil Parishes in England on the Civil parish page. Since you're the user who changed the redirect into an actual article, I wanted some advice on what to do about this whole thing. Plutonical (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why that hat note is there since there is no redirect. --Gotanda (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Qd declined

Hello, I just declined the Qd for Entrepreneur (magazine). If you still think the page is too complex, you might want to nominate it for deletion? Eptalon (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Sorry, was too quick on that one. --Gotanda (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hello Gotanda: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Ferien (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Poybo

Thanks for cleaning up Poybo Media. I was not sure exactly what was good to put on and what to leave out, so I just put it all haha dotdotcomma (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not the best approach. If you do not know what to put, do not put anything at all. I am not cleaning it up. I am getting ready to send it back to RfD again. --Gotanda (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay understood. dotdotcomma (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice!

Hello Gotanda! I saw your conversation regarding the page Bayu Prihandito on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and thought you might want to join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Bayu Prihandito. Best, – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 20:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I would have missed it. The page has been deleted and recreated so many times it is hard to keep track. I think it is time for "one strike" for that editor. They are wasting a lot of time pushing promo content and seem unable to learn. --Gotanda (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify your deletion nominations?

Hey Gotanda. I am not sure if you receive pings or not, so I wanted to let you know here. On the 2023/2024 Red Sea Crisis deletion nominations, I asked if you could clarify your nominations. Mainly what do you mean by "Direct to Red Sea Crisis is simpler." Whenever you see this, clarifying that in the nomination would help, as you nominated a redirect to the Red Sea Crisis for deletion and then said it should be directed to it. Thanks, WeatherWriter (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I expect we are in different time zones. Even if not, responses take time. --Gotanda (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

????

What about Quatro de Fevereiro Airport is not simple??? SurferSquall (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And if something isn't simple, fix it rather than deleting the article. SurferSquall (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Do not just copy and paste from English Wikipedia. Also, it is not my responsibility, or any other editor's responsibility, to follow you around and "fix it." Copying and pasting is a few clicks in less than a minute. Rewriting to make it simple takes time and effort. That is time and effort you have to put into editing here if you wish to contribute. --Gotanda (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gotanda. You have new messages at Rathfelder's talk page.
Message added 08:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MathXplore (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Crispbread

Can you tell me what you thought was too complex? Rathfelder (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No. I can't. That is the point. After a year here you should know how to simplify. I will not instruct you on every page. I have done that enough no other editor should either.

It is not what I think. Read the help pages and manual of style and follow it. Read the diff. https://www.diffchecker.com/n66VfN2p/ There is no place in this wiki for a semicolon for one thing.

If you cannot simplify, stop copying.. --Gotanda (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you've been here more than a year. Lots more copies. On mobile at the moment and I have better things to do but before you create any new articles or add to existing ones, you have a lot of cleaning up to do. Start with banana fritter and see if you can fix it. --Gotanda (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If copying is not allowed why do we have Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia? Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is your opinion. While I agree we should get rid of semicolons where we can I haven't seen any policy that says so. I think Crispbread as I left it was reasonably simple. I am sure it can be improved, but it has simple grammar and short sentences. Rathfelder (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Read this carefully. Wikipedia:Examples of simpler English and this. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. It is all right here: "Simple sentences are easier to understand than complex ones. The simplest sentence structure in English is subject-verb-object-period, subject-verb-object-period and so on. Try to use the simplest sentences that make sense." There is no rule about semicolons. It is not my opinion. There are no semicolons in a simple sentence. Read a grammar guideline to understand simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentence structures. Then, write simple ones.

Why do we have ? Did you read it?

9. Reword complex phrases to simple phrases.

10. Remove anything that you can't rephrase as long as it doesn't alter the meaning of the article.

You seem to have skipped step 9 and some of your simplification violates 10 by changing meaning.

If you cannot follow the instructions, you should not copy. If you want to copy, you have to follow the instructions.

Why do you need to copy? Why do you think complex copies here have any value? --Gotanda (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Before you quickly delete any of the articles I have worked on I would like a second opinion. I have spent quite a lot of time simplifying the sentences and the vocabulary. I would like someone to indicate what further simplification they think is needed. I appreciate that you do do not wish to do that.

There are clearly many thousands of articles here which started with a copy from a different wiki - in fact I am sure they constitute the majority of the articles we have. We are certainly not deleting all of them. Rathfelder (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: you are correct that they constitute a large portion of our articles. It is actually the main way we recommend people start an article. As long as you make a good effort at simplification then copying is perfectly acceptable as long as its attributed. I am somewhat shocked at a few of the articles of yours that have been tagged and quick deleted that did show siginificant attempts at simplification. As the saying goes, "perfect is the enemy of good". Gotanda please stop hounding good faith editors who are indeed simplifying articles. Continuing to do so will likely result in a block. -Djsasso (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The diffs clearly showed a lack of simplification, and as you mentioned there was no attribution. At least one admin agreed. We have guidelines for copying and simplifying and I think it is important to follow them. If they need to be changed, that can be discussed on Simple Talk. Thank you. --Gotanda (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)