User talk:Gotanda/Archive 2011 September 2015 March

Carbon–hydrogen bond activation

Thank you for your comments. We have a number of articles in draft form that will remove some of the red links. As for the first sentence of the article being a tautology, that is almost a requirement of the Wikipedia style. C-H bond activation is a chemical reaction. The rest of the characteristics that make it special are in the following separate sentences to keep the sentence structure simple. Do you have a different approach to writing a simple first sentence? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please put comments on the relevant Talk page. Gotanda (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for translation. Yanka Kupala and Yakub Kolas

Warm greeting from Belarusian Wikipedia! This year we celebrate 130. birthday of Belarusian great poets en:Yanka Kupala and en:Yakub Kolas Could you help us to translate articles into your unique and honourable language? Thank you in advance!--Rymchonak (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input requested

As one of the people who commented on my recent proposals to delete some disambiguation pages, your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Disambiguation_pages. I am sending this to all registered editors who commented on those proposals who have not already commented at Simple Talk. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. I've added a short comment over there. Gotanda (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Complex" articles

Thank you for looking at the articles. The ones that I believe are ready for article space are listed on User talk:Barras and are awaiting his review and comments. Ivy City was one of my first Simple articles. It was not reviewed by Barras. I am not sure that I understand the "red link" argument. Clearly if a sentence can be phrased to use only blue link words rather than red link words, it is better to go with blue words. In many cases, the technical term is not in either Simple Wikipedia or Simple Wiktionary. So I leave a red link to Wikipedia. In some cases, I explain the word and then put the word in parentheses following the explanation. Your comments are always welcome. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the relevant article Talk pages where it belongs. That way the comments ar attached to the article under discussion, rather than over here where it is disconnected and harder to follow. I've asked this before. Gotanda (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note about Stereochemistry. Could you please be more specific about your remaining concerns regarding that article? It seems that all of your concerns were addressed by August 13. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly, and not just by me. Gotanda (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Could you please explain? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Read previous comments on all of your complex articles from myself and Macdonald-ross. If you want some examples, read some Good and Very Good articles, especially scientific ones to see how it is done. That's all. I don't intend to keep on repeating myself to you. Gotanda (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article Stereochemistry and the text looks simple to me. Hence, my question. I also understand that the standard for GA and VGA articles is different and higher than the minimum standard for allowing an article into Simple Wikipedia. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are a higher standard, but they are good examples of how to write simply. I have answered all of your questions. Please put effort into simplifying the articles, not with these repetitive, if polite, questions. Questions will not make the articles simple. Read and follow the Simple Wikipedia Manual of Style. It's all there. I consider this thread of questions closed. Gotanda (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical stress

You seem to have concerns about Mechanical stress. Could you please be more specific about your remaining concerns regarding this article? The article was reviewed by User:Barras and all know concerns were addressed. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on John McDouall Stuart which helped the article reach GA status. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Molecular symmetry

Could you please write a review of this article, so that we know what specific concerns you have? Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No. It takes seconds to copy and paste, but hours to exhaustively review each sentence of an article. I have already explained elsewhere. Read and follow the Manual of Style. That is all. Gotanda (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying that I take "seconds to copy and paste," when I actually spend a lot of time on each article. I fix mistakes, check to see if words are on the simple vocabularly list, use synonyms, check references, change sentence structure, and shorten sentences. I do follow the Manual of Style. There must be something specific that is bothering you, and I would like to know what about the molecular symmetry article concerns you. Please write a short review on the talk page listing your concerns, so that I can learn from you. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No. I have already given you multiple instructions across many of your complex En copy-pastes. Changing a comma to a period is not simplification. Stop asking the same questions over and over again, and start simplifying. This discussion is closed. I will again ask you to put the comments or questions on the article talk pages where they belong--not here. Gotanda (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on your most recent message on my talk page, I have searched for your reviews of Conjugated system, Pericyclic reaction, Cycloaddition, Cheletropic reaction, Molecular symmetry, Mechanical stress, and Stereochemistry on the article talk pages. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places but I can't seem to find them. There must have been something specific about each of these articles that prompted you to move them. Could you please tell me what it is? I don't care of you do it here or on the individual talk pages, but I don't understand your present concerns. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't find them because I have already told you that I will not write them. I will not waste any more time than necessary to clean up the mess you have left behind. You are free to ask article related questions on the article talk pages, not on my talk pages. Stop asking the same questions again and again but ignoring the answers. Gotanda (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Responses on the deletion discussion pages

I have left you responses at the deletion discussion pages. I have not "abandoned" articles, rather I worked on them with others until we agreed that they were sufficiently simple. I am willing to work with you on articles for which you have concerns, but I can't find your statement of concerns that need to be addressed. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop it. Asking the same questions over and over again will not help. The articles from Macdonald-ross's initial mass RfD are not simple and you have abandoned them. No simplification since that time. Stop posting these meaningless requests on my Talk page and start simplifying if you are able to. Gotanda (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Abandon" means give up working on something before reaching a goal. Barras and I worked on each article until we agreed that we reached the goal of "simple." I have gone back and re-read the comments that you have made before. To the best of my knowledge, I have followed your suggestions. I also examined each article regarding vocabulary. Words that are not on the WP:Basic English combined wordlist are linked. The intended audience is high school students (or above) and scientists whose first language is not English. An important goal for the scientific articles is to introduce and explain scientific terminology. In many cases, we add sentences or phrases in parenthesis to introduce or explain terms. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep discussions in one place, please. Do not put article comments on my Talk page anymore. This comment belongs on the other RfD discussion where it will fit in context. The initial round of Advanced Chemistry Articles RfDs from Macdonald-ross were generally not simplified. I clearly documented the amount of time you had left them without any attempt to simplify. Please move the above comment to the ongoing discussion where it belongs, not here. Gotanda (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Earthquakes in 2006

I'm going through the unused templates, and I found this one that you created this past February. It only navigates one article. Do you plan to use the template, or can I QD it? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan earthquakes

I'm going through the unused templates, and I found this one that you created this past February. It only navigates one article. Do you plan to use the template, or can I QD it? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is OK to QD those two. The linked Hengchun article was a Translation of the Week and that must be how I got the templates in. I don't have any special plans to work with them. Thanks, as always, for keeping things tidy. Gotanda (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I have QD'd them both. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Template:Earthquakes in 2006

The page you wrote, Template:Earthquakes in 2006, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was deprecated or replaced by a newer template and are completely unused and not linked to. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Template:Taiwan earthquakes

The page you wrote, Template:Taiwan earthquakes, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was deprecated or replaced by a newer template and are completely unused and not linked to. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

QD requests

Hi Gotanda, thanks for having the patience to chase up what Jonayo was doing with this copy paste stuff. I agree with you that this is quite disruptive editing. I have put a wait notice on the QD requests to give time to the SEWP community to have a look at the problem and come to a decision about what needs to be done next. --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick note. I totally understand the purpose of the Wait. Good idea. I considered going straight to asking about a block, but thought I'd just point out the issue first. I'm kind of in danger of becoming the ranty guy who complains about copying and pasting from En. Cheers! Gotanda (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Complex

Hi, Gotanda. Thanks for reviewing "Pylorus". Can you, please, help me on this? I am willing to write more articles and would like to avoid them to be tagged again. Thanks in advance.” T_eLeS (T _{@ L C S}) 03:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Pylorus. The discussion is there so it is connected to the article itself. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I will read them carefully. Kind regards.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Gotanda (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you, please, review that article? I've made some changes at your suggestion.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for simplifying the rest of it too. Looks fine. Gotanda (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Teamwork Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For Gotanda, who took part in the big biography weekend in October 21-26, 2011. With help from 15 other editors, 48 new biography articles were created. Thanks for being part of the team. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a great idea for a challenge. We should do stuff like that more often. Gotanda (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry articles

Earlier this month, you moved seven articles to my user space:

• User:Racepacket/Mechanical stress
• User:Racepacket/Molecular orbital
• User:Racepacket/Molecular symmetry
• User:Racepacket/Cheletropic reaction
• User:Racepacket/Conjugated system
• User:Racepacket/Cycloaddition
• User:Racepacket/Pericyclic reaction

I have since had another editor take a look at them. Could you please check them over and tell me if you agree that they can be moved back to article space? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A read of the first one, Mechanical stress, shows that it isn't even close to being simple yet. I have given you very detailed feedback on that article, but do not have time to give the same line by line critique of each article. Most of these were poorly written on En in the first place, so trying to adapt them is doubly difficult. I have other things to do with my time, so I will not be able to give you such detailed feedback for the rest of them except to say that they are not ready. See Molecular orbital: "atoms become molecules"? Since when can atoms become molecules? Molecular symmetry is just a hodgepodge of redlinks from other difficult terms. Cheletropic reaction is likewise a mess and doesn't even link the first significant and non-simple terms such as reagent. This is not simple either in structure or vocabulary: "In the case of pericyclic reactions, the transition state of the molecule is a ring (has a cyclic geometry), and the reaction goes forward in a concerted way."

None of these are ready. Follow the instructions on How to write Simple English. It is all there. Learn to use a checker such as Edit Central. Identify the subject of each sentence and avoid introductory clauses, phrases, and passive constructions. That is all the time I can devote to your project now. Gotanda (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"astrological sign" is not accurate/apt enough

Why do you keep reverting my changes/edits which are appropriate in the entry pages for 'Astrology' and 'Birthday' (especially the ones for the former)? I think even if you personally disagree with them, you should at least let me/ask me to add elaborations or allow references (within that new[er] statement, or so), in the name of objectivity.

|| Fishly (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't "keep reverting (your) changes", but I did revert two changes that were inappropriate. External links can go in the "Other websites" section at the end of articles. Plus, these look like commercial sites/advertising. No personal disagreement meant of implied. Add references correctly as you like. Gotanda (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. Still, I disagree that those sites are "advertising" or strictly "commercial". Sometimes useful/relevant informative sites depend on advertising to sustain themselves. Also, how was my edit of "(usually referring to [astrological] Sun signs)" inappropriate (especially for the 'Astrology' entry page]? || Fishly (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lightbulb

I see that you put {{complex}} on the Lightbulb article. Do you have any specific suggestions? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The exact same specific suggestion as I have made before. Use a vocabulary profiler. Remove complex or uncommon words and replace therm with simple words. This article has complex vocabulary that is not needed. Again, linking to Wiktionary or another complex article is no substitute for writing in simple vocabulary whenever possible. I suggest using LexTutor. Fix all of the vocabulary above the BNC 3,000 mark as a start, then improve the writing structure. As I have said before, I cannot give line-by-line feedback on each and every passage or article you choose to bring over from En. The time involved is not balanced. It is quick to copy and change a few words, but very slow to actually simplify. It is even slower to instruct you how to simplify each and every passage. I will continue to mark articles by any editor complex as needed. Perhaps other editors will have the time to clean them up in the future. Finally, in this case and many others, simplification also means eliminating extra information. Cutting this down to just incandescent lightbulb information would be best. Other information in other articles as needed. Gotanda (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New articles

Hi, Gotanda. When you create articles, do you think you could include categories? For articles about people, it's good to have at least:

• a category for the year they were born
• Either Category:Living people or a category for the year they died
• A category for what they were noted for (such as their occupation)
• A category for their nationality, if that's not included in the one above

There can be others, but those are the basic ones. For example, in your article on Peter Yates, the following categories were added:

• Category:English movie directors -- note that his nationality is included here
• Category:1929 births
• Category:2011 deaths

Another thing to include in articles about people is a default sort. That would look like this:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Yates, Peter}}.

If you're not comfortable with categories, that's OK, but if you are it would be help to have them included. Feel free to let me know if you have questions about this. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll try to keep categories in mind. Sorry to have left that undone. Gotanda (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a huge deal -- lots of people don't even know about it. I meant it more as a friendly reminder. Cheers! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. Taken as just a friendly reminder. But, it is one of those things I should just be able to do. Gotanda (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo

You may want to look at your wording on the population section of Tokyo. Mainly the line "The number of people in Tokyo goes up by over 2.5 million each day as workers and students come into the city." seems to state that each day, another 2.5M people move to the city (ie, not transient population but a steady increase - 2.5M a day, 17.5M a week, 300+M a year) This may need to be worded differently to remove the ambiguity. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• You're right. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Geography Barnstar
		Thanks for taking part in the Capital City Weekend which greatly improved the quality of articles. Tokyo was late, but I was still counting edits. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Tokyo still needs a lot of work, but slowly, slowly... I wanted to help out on the actual weekend, but the timing was terrible for me with work etc. But these weekend projects are a good way of highlighting something that needs doing anyway. I still keep plugging away at the Deaths in 2011 list now and then too. What will be next? Gotanda (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nengō template

The template changes you suggested in Daiei (era) have been made in other nengō articles as well.

Maybe the term "reign" will be restored in the future. In any case, the word does not need to be in the first paragraph. --Tenmei (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I just saw all of your edits in the New Changes, but super busy right now at work. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Acute accent.

I see you have tagged acute accent as complex with the change summary "more complexity from EN". This is untrue. If you compare the two versions, you will see that I have made significant changes and have done everything I can to simplify it. Diacritics is a complex topic in its-self and until we get articles written on things like vowel quality and stressed vowels, it will remain so. There is nothing I can do to further simplify the article since I already spent the best part of an hour simplifying the paragraphs I took from EN. I could add parenthetical explanations but other than that, that's about all I can do. Therefore, having a complex tag on an article that can't be further simplified isn't really helpful. That said, I will go over the article again and simplify everything I can see that could be simpler. -Orashmatash- 16:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Orashmatash. Thanks for the comment. I'll give a little explanation then.

• 1. It is from En. That's right there in the history.
• 2. It is still complex. I see that you have made changes and it is not just a copy and paste.
• 3. It can certainly be simplified further. Right away, I can see two ways of simplifying it: get rid of all of the passives and reduce the level of detail. The "needs sources" template was brought over with this. The source article is relatively low quality, so one approach would be to cut this back by going ahead and removing some unsourced sections that go into minor detail. Macdonald-ross wrote about this, saying, "It is important not to import excessive detail from enWP. This is the key issue: If a reader wants more detail, they can find it on enWP. But if a reader wants to find a simpler version of something on enWP this is the only place they can go to get it. It is why we were created. The more we look like a mirror site for enWP, the less we are doing our job."
• 4. That takes time, as you have said. I don't have time personally to clean up all of the articles or content imported from En. If I have time, I do simplify them. If I don't have time, I tag them as complex so that I can either come back to them later, or someone else can.

Finally, content that is complex should be marked. I always consider language learners and people learning to read. It says "Simple English" right at the top of every page, so that is what readers expect. Beginning readers and language learners can become discouraged very easily. If they are told "this article is simple" but they find it very difficult to read, this often demotivates them. It is good to have more articles here, but it is always important to keep them simple. If I have time, I may come back to the acute accent article and try to simplify it. Gotanda (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Didcot power stations

I see that you left a message for an IP editor on the talk page of this article. I am a bit puzzled, because you claim to have compared the article to its "source" and found differences. The IP editor did not specify a source, so I was wondering what source you have read. I will be happy to investigate further if you can share that source with me. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Special words

When you have time, please look at Emperor Kammu and Ten'ō. There may be ways to simplify what I've written about April 30, 781 (Ten'ō 1, 3rd day of the 4th month).

Would you be willing to share your opinion about these six word choices? --Horeki (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

• wikt:succession
• wikt:receive=received
• wikt:confirm=confirmed

Wikipedia links

• Abdication=abdicated
• Monarchy=monarch's
• Ceremony=ceremonies

Sorry, I had a look, but I really would like to think carefully. I see the point of using some technical terms, but also tend to look for simplicity of wording as much as possible. Please let me give it some more thought after work and thanks for asking. Gotanda (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not feel any need to hurry. We can only do our best for now. Perhaps we will find our way to different words and a changed point of view in February.

This is not only about Kammu. We are developing a vocabulary for writing about the Nanboku-chō period. Across the array of articles about emperors and nengō, we are giving readers the tools to begin to work out that succession among the pre-Meiji emperors does not mirror Western models.

Yes, we are trying to simplify something complex. Also, do we want to create structures with "open doors" which invite readers' curiosity and desire to learn more? --Horeki (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia links seem sound to me; the Wiktionary links less so. In general, I tend to dislike links to Wiktionary because they add to the the reader's work without, as you say, opening doors. A wiktionary link requires a learner to select the correct definition from a list. This adds to the cognitive load in the midst of reading, which is not especially helpful. (Besides which, many of the wiktionary entries are rather poor.) I am not knowledgable about the Nanboku-chō period or really the Japanese court. If the models of succession are different, then perhaps they merit different articles? Link "succession" to an article (yet to be written) on succession in the Japanese Imperial court(s), perhaps? Gotanda (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for investing your time in this. For now, I've changed wikt:succession to simple:Succession. This is a disambiguation page with a non-standard introductory paragraph -- not quite good enough, but a start.

In a pre-Heian period context, there are simpler ways to write about transition. Maybe Emperor Sushun or Empress Suiko suggest a template for the other 120+ articles about Japanese monarchs?

• 587: In the 2nd year of Emperor Yōmei's reign, he died. The succession was received by a younger half-brother who would become known as Emperor Sushun. This was confirmed in ceremonies.
• 593 : In the 6th year of Emperor Sushun's reign, he died. The next monarch was his half-sister who became known as Empress Suiko. This succession was confirmed in ceremonies.
• ____ : In the _th year of Emperor X____'s reign, he died. The next monarch was Empress Y____. This succession was confirmed in ceremonies.

In mid-January, I might propose Emperor Kammu as a Good Article candidate -- not because it is good, but because this will invite constructive suggestions. In the process of review, perhaps critics will comment about the vocabulary issues. We'll see. --Horeki (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Science articles

I see that you have tagged some of the articles that were my work-product as {{complex}}. I continue to try hard to simplify articles. In many cases I give both the technical terminology and the simplified meaning. Could you please me more specific as to why you feel that the articles are not simple. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already tried that many times. Almost all of your article work is complex for several reasons.

1. You start by copying from En. Many editors do and that is fine. However, many of the source articles you select are very complex and/or poorly written. Look at the Discussion page for some of your sources.
2. You tend to try to keep every detail.
3. You often leave many sentences as-is without refactoring, or make very minimal changes. Sometimes whole chunks of the source remain without any simplification at all. I again refer you to the Help pages. See Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages#Simple_Sentence_Structure.
4. It appears that you do not check the vocabulary. Use an online vocabulary analysis tool such as LexTutor.
5. Many of the articles are basically a collection of links to other complex articles. Explaining terms by linking to other complex terms just creates a carousel of complexity for a reader to try to follow.
6. You have refused to accept that readability scales have any use at all, claiming that your articles are special because they require technical vocabulary. Often the readability rating is quite complex even if scientific jargon is replaced with one or two syllable dummy terms "foo", "bar", or "foobar".

The above applies to much of the content you have added to the wiki and to almost all of the science articles.

I have explained all of this several times before, but you just keep on politely asking the same question over and over again. I see little point in adding this feedback to each of your complex additions to the wiki since I have not seen significant change. Again, if you have a question about an article, please post it to the talk page of the relevant article, not here. That way the discussion will stay with the article where it may become useful. Also, other editors are more likely to see the question and respond. I mark articles complex if they are--regardless of subject area or creating editor. Or, I simplify the articles directly myself when I can. Gotanda (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

bio-stub

I just noticed an edit you made to Canadian Lynx. A gentle reminder: {{bio-stub}} is for biographies, not biology-related things. :) I changed it to {{sci-stub}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

{{biology-stub}} exists also. πr² 02:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

D'Oh! Thank you, both. Gotanda (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ringette

Bonsoir Gotanda, I modified both sentences. It are adequate now? -- ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Aviation barnstar

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making the Big Airport Weekend a success! Please accept this Aviation Barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Racepacket (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you so much

Merci beaucoup pour vos corrections sur les pages Wiki. Ma langue anglaise n'est pas très bonne. Voici pour vous un honneur comme correcteur.Thank you very much for your corrections on pages Wiki. My English language is not very good. Here is for you an honor as a examiner. -- ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Japan stub

You'll want a category to go with that. I'm too scared to do it! ;) Osiris (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to get that going next. Scary, isn't it, but I am quite sure it is needed. Lots of stubs. Many people to direct towards editing them. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You and Horeki have made hundreds between you and there are more coming almost every day. Osiris (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a question, wasn't it agreed to use asia-stub at the stub project and not japan-stub? Or did I miss a new discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for this, so I decided to be bold and demonstrate that need. I think you'll see enough follow up on clearing the stubs as well. Gotanda (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there was even consensus for asia-stub. I have redirected {{japan-stub}} to {{stub}} and requested quick delete of the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Auntof6, sorry. I left as short response on your talk page instead of here. I understand you do a lot of cleaning up around here and I do appreciate it. The new stub was actually an attempt to make clearing up and organizing simpler. To tell the truth, Asia is just so broad as to have little or no meaning in the context of stubs. With a Japan stub I can actually get something done, but it's a bit of a chicken and egg. I can't really demonstrate that without a functioning stub. Having a Japan stub would allow me to direct students and teachers in Japan where their work is most needed. Gotanda (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gotanda, I have opened a regular RFD for the category, as I believe a discussion is best focused in an RFD; Should the RFD not pass, this would mean we need to subdivide the "asia-stub" creating stubs for those countries where we have many articles, and leaving the category only for those where we don't. --Eptalon (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
See Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Category:Japan stubs --Horeki (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please re-consider the function of a stub. The phrase "spectrum of use" may be helpful in trying to understand the shared point-of-view of DJSasso, Auntof6 and Osiris? This phrase is used in the abstract of an article here in the Journal Comparative Strategy. Is it fair to suggest that their view of the spectrum of uses for a stub template is too limited? In order to maintain their viewpoint, it appears to become necessary to exclude or ignore what you write.

Perhaps you may want to make changes at Military taxonomy. In the process of working with the concepts of this article, perhaps you might think of words which help resolve the stub discussion?

It is as if DJSasso, Auntof6 and Osiris construe articles as something like an inventory of unmoving vehicles. The use of the equipment vehicles is outside the scope of the inventory. It's as if the subject of military strategy or range of uses are defined as irrelevant?

Does this restatement help move the dialog forward? --Horeki (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hugo(film)

Hi! you can help me with Hugo(film) plis to expand,a hug,thanks per you time,PD:zorry per my weak english :)Carliitaeliza (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

22nd Amendment

Do you mind taking a look at Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. My edits got in the way of your copyvio qd and the tag was removed. The article does not seem to be an issue any longer but thought it best to let you know of the change and let you decide if you still feel it is. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "got in the way". The history clearly shows that I tagged it QD for what was very clearly a copyright violation. There was no edit conflict when I made my edit. You removed the the tag and replaced it with complex, not simple, text. I'd suggest you try doing things a bit more carefully next time. But most of all, getting a login rather than using an IP address would be a good idea. Gotanda (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Technically, you're edit caused a edit conflict as it took place during the time I was cleaning up and expanding the article. My edit only interrupted the effects of your tagging the article for deletion as a copyvio via removing the tag you placed on the article prior to it being modified. Also, I didn't tag it as complex, you did. I just pointed out that the quoted text was in its original quoted form and not in Simple English as any changes to that text would make is useless (the meaning is already stated) and in need of being removed as being redundant. As to getting a login, I already have User:Creol and User:Pure Evil (both pages redlinked as I deleted them when I stepped down as a B'crat here) and am perfectly capable of dealing with simple editing without the need for using either account 99% of the time (page moves get annoying where people cannot follow naming conventions but that is about it.)

I just posted here to extend the courtesy of informing you that I removed your tag and left if to your discretion if you felt it was still needed. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

HI, sorry I misunderstood. I saw the IP and the "anonymous user" in the email notification and didn't realize it was an experienced user. I usually see the edit conflicts when I hit preview and try to not overwrite, but it happens sometimes. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article content

Remember, we have a responsibility to our readers to cover the key elements of each article's subject. Everyone has their own individual opinions as to what is important and what is not. I've made my call and you can make your own. However, as we discussed on Great Lakes, removing all discussion of invasive species from that article was a mistake. I know that you are trying to improve each article rather than to make a point and I know you will do your best to determine what is important enough to leave in the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, removing it was not a mistake. Copying and not simplifying it was the mistake that was fixed by others. You just don't get it. This is Simple English Wikipedia. There is no need to create another online copy of En. 218.110.0.59 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Sign after "loss of session data" error. Gotanda (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is an important difference between simple presentation and simple ideas. Simple English Wikipedia is for simple presentation using simplify vocabulary and simple sentence structures. Complex ideas are welcomed here. Now let's take a look at your changes to Thermosetting polymer: The official IUPAC definition could be important to readers. Maybe I should have moved it down to a footnote so that it would not block the flow of the article. Listing examples of Thermosetting polymers help the reader understand the subject. I think that listing three ways of moulding thermosetting polymers are also helpful to the reader. Bullet lists do not pose the grammar problems that regular sentences may create. So, I thought it was best to include them. But we all have different subjective standards and I can see how someone else could reach the opposite conclusion. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep it on the article Talk page. It is about the language. Either the English is simple or it is not. Your copies are not. Gotanda (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Janice Raymond

This was a good find. If you find any more articles that look dubious like this, can you list them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? Or just drop me a line and I'll take a look at it. Thanks, Osiris (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And, thanks for demonstrating how to more clearly link a diff. As far as the copyvio goes, will do in the future. I wasn't exactly sure what to do with it and hoped that the template would at least direct the right set of eyes at it. Cheers, Gotanda (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Prefectures of Japan

Please review an evolving template/format for articles about the Prefectures of Japan. I wonder if it is a mistake to omit cities and districts?

Simple Wikipedia without cities?

• Fukuoka Prefecture?
• Kagoshima Prefecture?
• Kumamoto Prefecture?

• Nagasaki Prefecture?

English Wikipedia with cities?

• en:Fukuoka Prefecture?
• en:Kagoshima Prefecture?
• en:Kumamoto Prefecture?

• en:Nagasaki Prefecture?

In the context created by your diff here, it seemed that I was working at cross-purposes to your long-term plans?

In your opinion, is this better?

Simple Wikipedia with cities?

• Fukuoka Prefecture?
• Kagoshima Prefecture?
• Kumamoto Prefecture?

• Nagasaki Prefecture?

I have no plans to create stubs about Japanese cities. Is it fair to say that you believe that these red links will encourage others? --Horeki (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Horeki,

Thank you for prompting me to think a bit more systematically about it. Lots of redlinks can make a short article look unfinished, but generally, I think the city link lists on the articles help. They may or may not prompt others to start a new article, but at least they do prepare the proper link structure, for example Saitama, Saitama, not just Saitama. New editors are likely to miss that (I know by experience). It is especially helpful in the case of locations with macrons that some people may miss. I've made that error as well. Sound OK to you? Gotanda (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Allison

Hey Gotanda. When you have time, can you review Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Hugh Allison again? The author has worked on it a bit, so I'm wondering if your opinion has changed. Osiris (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Template transclusion count

As a context for unresolved questions about Template:Japan-stub, please consider my diff here. --Horeki (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait for QD

A3:Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change. I have made changes. You can see it! I think the reason why you put {{qd}} is you saw the table. Actually, I asked it at WP:ST#On the s-block. --Kc kennylau (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do anything.(Either object my objection or delete the qd.--Kc kennylau (talk)

On WP:SB

OK, please remove qd now.--Kc kennylau (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page. Specific article discussion does not belong here. Gotanda (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Removing (song) from article titles

But even if there is no need for the dab, the "(song)" isn't needed because no article exists on any other topic. Plus, those aren't disruptive redirects, like I was doing on en.wiki. Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my changes! 15:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

nihongo‎

Hey Gotanda. I think our {{nihongo‎}} template may have been a bit outdated, so I copied over the English Wikipedia version. I've had a quick look round and nothing appears to have been broken, but if you see that it's caused problems (or thought it was better the way it was before), please don't hesitate to change it back. Thanks, Osiris (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please reply to my talk page

Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my changes! 20:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Gotanda. You have new messages at Ian Streeter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my changes! 00:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Gotanda. You have new messages at Ian Streeter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my changes! 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

SImplification

All the articles have been extensively simplified from what is found on the main English Wikipedia. The difficulty with too much simplification is that the text can begin to lose its proper meaning. Content Rules is not certain what more you feel is required. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If the difficulty is that "too much simplification can begin to lose meaning", I have several suggestions: first, perhaps Simple English Wikipedia is not the appropriate project to use as a workspace; second, include less detail; third, and perhaps most constructive, act on our previous discussion for Content Rules to create an internal style guide. The fact that complex words that occur again and again like "diagnosis" and "medication" are still not being simplified indicates that more care needs to be taken before moving these articles to Simple English Wikipedia. Content Rules needs to change the excessive use of passive constructions and sentences with multiple clauses and phrases before moving content here. Content Rules is an organization. If members of that group still are unsure what the "Simple" in Simple English Wikipedia means, I suggest each of them spend a bit of time here. Maybe more of them should create accounts here and become more directly involved rather than leaving everything to you. I have pointed out specific details which I know you agreed to, and they are just not being acted on. This seems to be a very worthwhile project, but needs attention beyond copying and pasting from what Content Rules is currently doing. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Please take a look a the discussion thread at User talk:Osiris#Categories. --Horeki (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick read over coffee this morning. Will re^read and reply there. Gotanda (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

PoM(KPs)

How is the english used in Part of Me (Katy Perry song) bad English? Maybe it's because it was copied from the English article (but how is it bad is the question?)

I'm not sure why you think it is "bad" or ar asking me that. I did mark it as "complex". This is not English Wikipedia; this is Simple English Wikipedia. That is page is not simple. Gotanda (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But I just wonder why you marked it as complex? (i.e. what is complex and what needs to be changed and example of the non-complex test) Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my changes! 19:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Part of Me (Katy Perry song) for comments. Best to keep article discussion on the article talk page where anyone can find it. Gotanda (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Romaji

Please consider the related issues. Does this make sense to you?

• Talk:Ryōta Tsuzuki#Move page (Ryōta Tsuzuki→Ryota Tsuzuki)
• Talk:Yūzō Tashiro#Move page (Yūzō Tashiro→Yuzo Tashiro)
• Talk:Ryūji Bando#Move page (Ryūji Bando→Ryuji Bando)
• Talk:Kōji Nakata#Move page (Kōji Nakata→Koji Nakata)

On one hand, I am not really interested in this.

On the other hand, our attention to this small matter may be appreciated by Japan Football.

Will this help Japan Football to grow as a constructive contributor? If so, it is worth our investment of time and care, yes? --Horeki (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Romanization is rarely done consistently, but since this Wiki went down the macron style long ago, I think we should try. Please see my comment at Talk:Kōji_Nakata and thank you for bringing this to my attention. Gotanda (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Gotanda, for taking part in my request for adminship, which closed as successful with 21 in favour and none opposed. I promise to do my very best in this new role! Regards, Osiris (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was more than happy to support your nomination. I hope you enjoy the pushing the mop and find it fulfilling. Gotanda (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gotanda, I'm sure I will! :) Osiris (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Can you comment on "The Substitute"? I've been working on it with another user for several days. I'm hoping to nominate the article for GA. Thanks in advance, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Carousel of complexity

In the Science Articles thread above, you used a phrase which was unfamiliar to me. I googled the words; and I invested time in thinking about the phrase.

I wonder if this phrase is considered a common idiomatic expression?

Do you have an opinion about the usefulness of phrase in the context of our project? If I understand it correctly, this concept is at the heart of what we are trying to do in our work to develop simple:Wikipedia. --Horeki (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that phrase caught your attention. I'm pretty sure it is not a common idiom. I think the metaphor works in that much like a carousel or merry-go-round, it is easy to get on, but the circle of links from one complex page to another to another never really stops. In that case, it was impossible for the ready to get off the spinning ride onto the solid ground of a simply written article with fundamental information. I believe the metaphor is original, so maybe not accessible or simple, which is especially ironic in this case. It might serve as an organizing image for an explanation of how not to add supporting links to articles on complex topics. Please expand on or use the idea as you think is most useful. Gotanda (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

STOP, harm, undo

Please review my words here.

I wrote 柄の悪い投稿はやめてください。迷惑です。 ("Please stop the bad post pattern. It is annoying.")

Can you suggest a better wording? a better strategy? --Horeki (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that. I hope it is constructive, but at this point, Japan Football seems immune to feedback. I'll wait and see, but if that behavior continues asking for a short block may be in order. Gotanda (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Counting

Do you know the idiom apples and oranges? Yes?

Please hold this phrase in the back of your mind; and now recall what you know about counting in Japanese. What have you learned about the difference between counting trains or pencils and counting fruit like apples and oranges?

This is an English-language project; and I can think of no context in which this linguistic part of Japanese language needs to be explained or discussed. Nevertheless, it is something you know and understand, yes?

If so, this begs a question: Is it relevant?

For now, please bear with me and set aside the issue of relevance. Please assure me that you simply understand the word commensurate. If so, we have established a kind of common ground with two points of agreement:

• Apples and oranges focuses attention on things that are not commensurate
• Counting trains and pencils in Japanese focuses attention on things that are commensurate

This much is simple, yes? --Horeki (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all of the statements you made, but not the purpose here on my Talk page. Do you wish me to take some action on this Wiki? Just say so clearly. If this is about the Kyūshū, Hokkaidō, and Shikoku regions (It seems to be because I have already read your extensively linked Apples and Oranges discussion elsewhere.) please keep that discussion on the relavant article or RfD talk pages where all concerned editors can see it. I will say that I stand by my recommendation to redirect and it seems that several other editors do as well. Gotanda (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotanda's day

Gotanda has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Gotanda's day! For being such a great wikipedian and kind person, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Gotanda! Osiris (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

BHW work

Big Heritage Weekend

Thank you for coming in at the end of the weekend and working on Japanese World Heritage Sites. I see there is no Japanese barnstar (there should be!) so I give you this barnstar. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a great idea for a weekend. I just wish I'd had the time to contribute a bit more. Gotanda (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A nice, new, and even bigger star. Very cool. thanks, Gotanda (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist

When copying over the infobox (or entire article) for musical entertainers, just shift the template from {{Infobox musical artist}} to {{infobox musical artist 2}}. It gives it a fast translation from the en: template to our template without all the fuss of changing all the parameter names. The only thing that may need to be checked is if the image is from en (and needs to be removed from the template) or commons (and shows up fine). I would suggest against subst: the translation though.. it translates all the options whether they are used for that article or not. gets a bit overcrowded added the "group" info to a "solo performer" article. --Creol(talk) 11:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. That's pretty simple. Just had no idea. Will do. Gotanda (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wicca rock

Hi Gotanda! Would you show me which parts have been taken from a website? The article goes back to 2008 so unless most of it is a copyvio, I'd have to check whether earlier revisions also contain the infringement. Thanks, Osiris (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Chunks here and there throughout.

• ""Wicca Rock" may not be religious neutral to many of the Christian faith." right down to the mistake.
• Another "Wiccans are organizing congregations and youth groups, training clergy, pursuing charity work" from 2004 different site though
• There is lots more, but I gotta run.

There are new words stringing the bits together. Reads like the fan sites it is from. Gotanda (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Because it's such an early work, I can't accurately verify who the original author is — whether the material was taken from these websites or whether these websites got their material from Wikipedia. I've put it up for RFD instead. There are other issues that warrant deleting anyway. Osiris (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up for RfD. I thought about going that route, but went for the QD first. Since I'm not an admin, I know any QD request I make will get a second set of eyes on it so nothing will get deleted incorrectly. BTW, thanks for checking all of those. I found them all at Special:WithoutInterwiki which seems to be a good place to find various problem articles. Vanity/fan pages, things that don't follow the style, multiple versions of the same topic like Brain tumor/Brain tumors/Brain cancer was one set. Cheers, Gotanda (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Wow, 1,723 pages. You sure have your work cut out for you! Good thing we get paid so handsomely for this. Osiris (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I know! What if people found out what a goldmine we're sitting on? All I need is a few more edits and I can buy that summer house in the mountains I've always wanted. Gotanda (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys definitely deserve a raise. If it were me, I'd ask for at least 20%! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Raises for everybody. Starting today, all our salaries go up not just 20, but 50%! Gotanda (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RfD

Hi Gotanda, per your edit (diff) on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Plausible Prejudices: Essays on American Writing specifically "apparently SL93 really wants this article on Wikipedias" is a little odd. It could be construed as not very friendly and could even come across bite-y (it is the way I initially took the comment). Of course I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but please be careful with your comments. I find it good practice to re-read what I type before clicking save. We obviously want as many constructive editors here as possible. SL93 is obviously not a troll and is constructively communicating with other users to help improve Simple.wiki... We're all here for the same reason, and its much easier (and better!) to work together on it. Many hands make light work and all that, eh? :) Regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 13:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kennedy, Sorry I guess it didn't come across the way I meant it. I should have just stated the facts. SL93 created the article on En. The user then came to SImple for the first time apparently just to create the article here.

Opinion: When new editors come from En seemingly just to create and vigorously defend a single article related to politics and the "culture wars" in the US, it seems like pushing POV to me. I wasn't going to go that far, so I commented that "apparently SL93 really wants this article on Wikipedias" since that actually seemed nicer. Anyway, the whole tone of the discussion has gone even further downhill since then. Sorry if I pushed it that way. Thanks for taking the time to get in touch and I'll keep it in mind. Gotanda (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right that its all gone downhill... shame. But no I don't think that you 'pushed' it that way. I understand your pov now you explain it. Kudos on an exceptionally adult response, of which we get very little here sometimes. Kindest regards Kennedy ^(talk) 23:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Usually if I wait long enough everything blows over, but sometimes I can't help myself and jump in too quickly too. Either way, Simple is just a good project, not life itself. Right? See you around, Gotanda (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was planning on being active here. I didn't create the article because I have an interest in it - I created it because it seemed notable to me. Everyone starts on a wiki or any other website somewhere. Your opinion is assuming bad faith and is insulting. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice Stranger with My Face that I created as a start with plans to add more, but maybe not now. I did read that book by the way. SL93 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I did not notice that other stub. Thank you for pointing it out. I read it and followed the link in the reference to find it was a dead link (404). I search the RH site and found nothing, so I removed the dead link. Regards, Gotanda (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you removing the link was a good thing. Otherwise I wouldn't have found that it won 5 awards rather than just one. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail

..is what you've got. ;D Osiris (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RE Selena

In reply to your message here, can you please explain further? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The article is just way too long and has lots of unimportant little facts in it. It reads like what it is (a fan page). EnWP (28,653 bytes) SEWP (57,267 bytes). There is no reason the SEWP article should be so long. Length is part of reading difficulty. Here is one example "Before Selena was born, her mother Marcella Ofelia Samora was told she had a tumor. Doctors told her that it needed to be removed. Because of her religion, she wanted a second opinion. When Samora saw a second doctor, she was told that she was actually pregnant. " None of this business about the tumor and how her mother discovered she was pregnant are relevant. There are plenty of others. The article should be much shorter. Gotanda (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The enWP version is undergoing an expansion from one of the editors who brought it to FA status so that's not the final revision. I understand that the seWP version should be less and be straight-to-the-point. However, since I am a fan it is hard to determine which sentences are fancruft and what should be on the article. Thanks for replying back I'll try and see what needs to be removed including that sentence. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can make it one-half to two-thirds as long as it is now, it would be much improved. Gotanda (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Kameoka

Can I do this merge? I wasn't sure whether this was one of your group's so wanted to check with you first just in case. Osiris (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, please do merge. A few of them seemed to go a little too far with link/stub creation. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pilot program

The practical strategy which is parsed here informs my thinking, especially as I try to grapple with issues which arise at Wikipedia:Proposed Indian Education Program. --Horeki (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski article

What do you think of my changes to the Roman Polanski article? Are they good, bad, or mediocre? --RJR3333 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Hey mate. If you need any help checking over those student pages, just let me know - I'd be happy to help. To another matter, can you clarify what this is? Is there any reason not to keep the redirect? Osiris (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we can keep it. It doesn't really hurt anything, but in the interest of neatness. Basically, Ajona is copying from En and (somewhat) simplifying. The En articles have messy links that link to the redirect rather than the actual page. Someone on En made the redirects and didn't fix the incoming links to the old pages. Rather than fixing the links in the text he is copying, he's recreating the redirect page. I've pointed it out to him. I hope he starts fixing the links instead of creating new articles just to be redirects. Since we're starting fresh, why not have just the one article rather than two? Seems, well.... simpler. ;-) Gotanda (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean now. One of the big advantages of redirects here is that they stop duplicate articles being created. If there's a redlink somewhere here, or if the article on enwiki gets moved to a title that doesn't exist here - then people start creating those redlinks without checking to see if we already have an article on that subject. So I like redirects because it helps prevent this. Osiris (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think that Jona is going too fast. I will comment on your thread there. Osiris (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I love it when people talk about me its well...laughable. Anyways Gotanda please reply to my talk page about the rosy red minnow redirect. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 15:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of simplification of medical articles

I notice that in your most recent medical article Stomach flu another editor undid your large pasted in article from Content Rules and asked you to simplify it. You then undid Auntof6's change. That simplification should be done before copying and pasting it here. None of the previous articles have been adequately simplified either. I have several suggestions for how to proceed, but first I would like to ask you to slow down and simplify the existing articles before adding more.

Please consider the following, you have stated that "there is no time limit" on Wikipedia, but actually there is. How long would an article in French be allowed to stay on English Wikipedia? These articles are in medical English not Simple English. They are not in the language of this Wiki. They all need to be simplified. I have tried to help simplify, but there is just too much to do at this point.

I have returned the article to the earlier version. Please simplify before copying. Simplified articles should be shorter, include less detail (especially extraneous detail), and in simple vocabulary and grammar. This wiki serves beginning readers, readers who want simpler content, and second language learners--not medical service providers.

I understand that you have a plan:

1. EnWiki to 2. Content Rules to 3. Simple English Wikipedia then 4. to many other languages.

I suggest that a better direction would be:

1. EnWiki to 2. Content Rules then to 3. many other languages (including Simple English Wikipedia as one of them). I don't see the reason to force all of this content through SEWP first before retranslation. It may actually make the translation task harder rather than easier. In any event, it doesn't seem to be working since none of the articles have been simplified yet.

Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

James, why don't you just use your user space? Osiris (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

They have been extensively simplified from the main English version already. If you mean that you wish the ideas within the articles to be simplified as well (per Junior Wikipedia) I guess that is a different matter. But I assumed that was a different project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Macron

Please take a look at the first paragraph of Yūki Ōgimi. No source is cited for the use of the macron.

Macrons are used at en:Yūki Ōgimi and de:Yūki Ōgimi; however, no macron is used, for example, at the FIFA website here nor at the New York Times here.

What have we learned from past discussions about this subject? This context did not help me understand how to parse the relevant issues. Do you recall

• Talk:Ryōta Tsuzuki#Move page (Ryōta Tsuzuki→Ryota Tsuzuki)?
• Talk:Yūzō Tashiro#Move page (Yūzō Tashiro→Yuzo Tashiro)?
• Talk:Ryūji Bando#Move page (Ryūji Bando→Ryuji Bando)?
• Talk:Kōji Nakata#Move page (Kōji Nakata→Koji Nakata)?

Is it better to move this article to a title without macrons? I think so. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Last night I noticed Category:Proposed page moves. All articles listed seem to be a macron issue. When you reach a decision can you please address those articles too so we can take the tag off? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I wish we weren't stuck with the macrons at all. They really cause problems and aren't very helpful. But, that decision was made a long time ago. Gotanda (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Japanese prefectures?

Welcome back from vacation. I wonder if this is something ELTted would want to know?

• See Auntof6 at User talk:Horeki#Categories for Japanese prefectures?

Is this something ELTted might be able to use in class? --Horeki (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I'll still be mainly offline traveling until next week. Gotanda (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Eiji Kawashima

I wonder if this article might be useful in the classroom?

• Nagatsuka, Kaz. "Language skills key for Kawashima," Japan Times June 17, 2012; excerpt, "Kawashima noted how vital it is to be able to communicate with teammates and coaches in their native languages... 'and that leads to maximizing your performance'"; retrieved 2012-8-29 (archived)

Perhaps articles like this one can help highlight the practical context Wikipedia provides? --Horeki (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101

Thanks for you're work on my articles that I created. Once again Thank You SO Much!!!!!!! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) - September 8, 2012

Hi, I am simplifying, but if this is the simplifying you're not looking for well tell me how exactly I need to simplify articles. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) - August 30, 2012

Did you follow the links in the message from Osiris? This is not about simplifying. It is about giving credit to English Wikipedia editors for the work they have done. It can be a good idea to use English Wikipedia when making an article here, but you have to say so. Look at this example: Article history and Talk history. Look at the edit summaries and click "Change" on the Talk page to see details. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, If you see the article that ive recently created look at the view history, ive given credit, but if you don't see it ive given credit to the people on the english wikipedia.Please write back. User:TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) - August 30, 2012

I see you have tried, but you need to follow the guidelines on this wiki. There is very simple code to help you. You need to read the links from Osiris, especially This one. Look at the code in curly brackets like this {{based on|Bullfrog|oldid=215369935}}. You get the oldid number from the English Wikipedia site by clicking "Permanent link" in the Toolbox. Gotanda (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dom DeLuise

Hi Gotanda, I created that page on July 27, 2012. I added a ref today September 3, 2012. This must be a misunderstanding. From TDKR Chicago 101.

TDKR Chicago 101

Hi there, I have started to add refs. But in the summary section before I publish a article I put Thanks to the english wikipedia for helping me/guiding me to create this article. All credit goes the english wikiepedia. Can you help me do it your way, please write back. TDKR Chicago 101.

Good News from TDKR Chicago 101

Please write back because I have some good news! I finally understand and started adding this to the talk page to every page I have or will create: {{based on|Tony Scott|oldid=510983416}}. You see!! But I have a question, where do I find the oldid number If can't see it on the history section on the english wikipedia article. Please write back, Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tokyo → Tokyo Prefecture

Please review a small change here at Prefectures of Japan. Do you think this better?--Horeki (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should link to the historical prefecture. It should link to the current Tokyo. What is the point of linking to the old prefecture? Most users will want Tōkyō. En and Jp Wikipedia link to the current metropolis. It messes up the common to-do-fu-ken. All other links in the table go to current political units, not historical ones. Gotanda (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming to-do-fu-ken. I have made the change you suggest. Tokyo is mentioned three times; and there is a consolidatd inline note which explains "Tokyo Prefecture means Tokyo-fu (東京府, 1869-1943); and Tokyo, Tokyo means City of Tokyo (東京市, Tōkyō-shi, 1869-1943). Tokyo means the Tokyo Metropolis (東京都, Tōkyō-to, 1943-present). --Horeki (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nihongo template in 1st sentence

Macdonald-ross presents an arguable point-of-view at User talk:Horeki#Interruption of initial sentence.

In my opinion, nihongo templates (and Korean Hangul and Hanja) are valuable, crucial and indispensible. I think this is something which belongs in the opening sentence of an article about a Japanese or Korean subject. For example, in tandem with Template:Japanese name or Template:Korean name, the explicit emphasis and restatement are needed precisely because the information is likely to be unfamiliar to our SEWP readers. In addition, compare "what links here" at

• Template:Chinese name → example Lee Kuan Yew
• Template:Telugu name → example Saina Nehwal

What do you think? Why?

Is it relevant to remind you that this change, if implemented, would require altering hundreds of articles? --Horeki (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

We may disagree, but perhaps I just don't understand well enough yet.

I guess I don't know what you and Macdonald-ross mean by an "interruption" in the first sentence of an article about a person with a non-English name.

Please allow me to make plain that we remain in agreement about the long-term goals of our project and our work together. --Horeki (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Footballer stubs

When you have time, please give some thought to User talk:Horeki#Dates. At this time of year, I don't want to add to your workload. On your list of priorities, please add this near the bottom. --Horeki (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Please archive your messages,as it is hard to find them.Receptie123 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a problem? I don't think anything is hard to find. But, to be honest, I've just been too busy lately and less motivated. Gotanda (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You have 76 messages in total.It's not so difficult to create an archive.Anyway,it will be easier for people to find messages.Receptie123 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Receptie you need to worry less about other peoples user pages and more on working on articles. It is up to individuals if they want to archive. Not all people want to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Receptie, I was just going to comment that this is my Talk page, archiving doesn't make finding things easier, and mind your own business. Gotanda (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ansei

Japanese calligraphy by Ernest Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".

The username "Horeki" is now semi-retired. I formally set it aside in a manner which is consistent with Wikipedia policies.

What I have done -- and why -- was explained on my talk page in 2011 when I set aside the username "Tenmei". My reasoning was parsed in specific detail here.

The change history of User:Horeki here is consistent with that what I proposed to do at that time; and the limited change history of User:Ansei here is part of a continuing, long-term investment in our project. This is made visually clear in the similar graphic layout of the user pages and talk pages.

Layout of similar user pages and talk pages

User page format A rakan reading at Kita-in, a Buddhist temple in Japan. Ansei (安政) = "peaceful government" My username is derived from Ansei (安政), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 1854 through 1860. The name was created to signal the beginning of a peaceful period, but it turned out to be a time of great change. The nengō Ansei means "peaceful government" (庶民安政、然後君子安位矣). A rakan whose hands are full at Kita-in, a Buddhist temple in Japan. Horeki (宝暦) = "Valuable Calendar" My username is derived from Hōreki (宝暦), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 1751 through 1764. The new era was created to mark the death of the retired Emperor Sakuramachi and the death of the former Shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune. The nengō Hōreki means "Valuable Calendar" or "Valuable Almanac". This time frame was created retroactively by Emperor Momozono in 1754. A mudra ( मुद्रा ) and a gesture of remembering. Tenmei (天明) = dawn My username is derived from Tenmei (天明), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 1781 through 1789. The new era marked the beginning of the reign of Emperor Kōkaku (光格天皇, Kōkaku-tennō) in 1781. The nengō Tenmei means "Heavenly Radiance" or "dawn". User talk page format Daruma in a public place Ansei (宝暦) = "peaceful government" Like a chicken talking to a duck Talking past each other is like a chicken talking to a duck (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講). --Ansei (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Daruma of Shorinzan at Takasaki in Gunma Prefecture Horeki (宝暦) = "valuable calendar" This username is semi-retired. Daruma (達磨). Tenmei (天明) = dawn This username is semi-retired.

I underscore that the change of name to Ansei draws attention to the phrase "peaceful government". This signals of an on-going investment in a peaceful working environment. --Ansei (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Prodigious Savants

Gotanda, You have erased significant Prodigious Savants. I work in the field of Savant Syndrome and I'm and M.D and this is my expertise. Please do not do this anymore. Also, The Dublin News is http://www.midwestradionetwork.com/. This is verified by going to the bottom of the news tab and seeing this. I'm from Nebraska and graduated from the University of Nebraska. I'm well aware of Mid West Radio Network in New South Wales, west of Sydney and their affiliation with the Dublin News. Please be more aware of the references and people before you delete them. Thank you Einstein44 (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2012 (EST)

Tea masters

Please review the defaultsort at Sen Sōshitsu. Is this not a title and also a pseudonym? I think there should not be a comma.

In the same way, I also wonder if Sensō Sōshitsu (Sen Sōshitsu IV) and Hansō Sōshitsu (Sen Sōshitsu XV) should be treated in the ways that are explained at en:WP:MOS-JA#Pseudonyms. What do you think?

FYI -- The tea ceremony and tea masters are not topics I plan to expand. My small investment arises only because of a redlink in the first paragraph of a stub article about H. Paul Varley. I often cite his translation of Jinnō Shōtōki; and a link to the bio-stub may help underscore that this is a reliable source. --Ansei (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure and have no knowledge tea ceremony or the naming conventions. I can't give an informed opinion on this. Sorry. Gotanda (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Slapping tags

The best way to insure that Wikipedia does not improve is by irritating contributors with nonsensical tags, deletion requests etc. Considering the articles you tagged did not exist beforehand do you really believe that placing those tags is going to motivate anybody into doing anything? All the tags do is deprecate the educational value, if any, that an article may have. And as matter of simple courtesy, you could have utilized my talk page where you could have addressed your dire concerns in regards to simplification.

You have written no medical articles whatsoever, I have. The medical articles on the regular English Wikipedia are to put it euphemistically, lacking. The medical articles here are worse. I am devoting MY TIME into at least somewhat rectifying that, the best way to insure I, or other individuals who may be so inclined, don't do anything, is to be continually irritated, by tags, deletion requests etc. When I become more proficient in Basic English, I will simplify my own articles, I don't need your tags to motivate me to do so. So please do me a favor and don't be rude and tag my articles. Thank you. 7mike5000 (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As you said in your edit summary "spare the condescension". Right back at you. You seem to present yourself as a medical expert here to save the wiki. You also seem to not yet understand the purpose of this wiki as Simple English Wikipedia. The complex tags serve several purposes. Articles tagged complex are identified for any editor to work on--not just you. More importantly, they identify complex articles for the reader. Readers come here for simple writing and expect that is what they will get. It can be very demotivating for language learners to attempt to read something they expect to be simple, but then find it difficult. The Complex tag lets language learners know that what they are attempting to read may not be as simple as they expect and to adjust their expectations accordingly. I see that you are new here, but I will tag articles as needed. Regards, Gotanda (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Great-great-grandchildren

Please look at the first paragraph of Gosei (fifth-generation Nikkei). It includes wiktionary links

• wikt:grandchild
• wikt:great-grandchild

This subject is a bit complicated. Do you have time to help me see how the sentences could be made better? more easily understood? simpler?

On the other hand, maybe what I wrote is good enough? What do you think? --Ansei (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it looks pretty good. The whole generation system can get a bit confusing. I made a few small changes--hope they are OK. Mainly, I didn't see the need for the sixth and seventh generation explanation and thought it simpler to just focus on the 5th. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing problems I didn't know how to put in the form of a question, such as

• Issei, Nisei, Sansei, etc. are at the same time

• emigrants in Japanese law and custom; and also they are
• immigrants in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Peru, etc.

• possessives are tricky

• Issei 's grandchildren ...?
• grandchildren of Issei ...?

Your suggestions make the sentences simpler, clearer, better. --Ansei (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, thanks for telling me that. Marcus20 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jinki

The username "Ansei" is now semi-retired. I formally set it aside in a manner which is consistent with Wikipedia policies.

This username is derived from Jinki (神亀), which was a Japanese era name (年号, nengō, lit. "year name") during the years from 724 through 729. The era name change was part of a pacification or peace-making ritual. The nengō Jinki means "turtle".--Jinki (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

When a bird does not sing

Senryu
If the cuckoo does not sing, kill it

鳴かぬなら、殺してしまえほととぎす

If the cuckoo does not sing, coax it

鳴かぬなら、鳴かして見せようほととぎす

If the cuckoo doesn’t sing, wait for it

鳴かぬなら、鳴くまで待とうほととぎす

In the 15th century, the three leaders who contributed the most to Japan's unification were Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu.

You may not know that they had very different personalities. Each of them are characterized in a series of three well known senryu. -- see Frank Brinkley. (1915). A History of the Japanese People from the Earliest Times to the End of the Meija Era, p. 492.

There is an anecdote which compares and contrasts what is known about the very different problem-solving patterns of each leader. Ieyasu outlived and out-waited the others and he ultimately reaped the benefits of what the others had accomplished.-- see Rohan Kōda. (2006). Pagoda, Skull & Samurai, p. 269.

In English, the hototoguisu is called the Lesser cuckoo (Cuculus poliocephalus). --Jinki (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Please let know for future reference

Hello, Gotanda. You have new messages at Chenzw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re-thinking

Now that Wikitpedia:Simple talk#Racepacket's unblock request is closed, I wonder if I might highlight one general issue. Your diff here was helpful to me. Since reading your words, I have invested time thinking about two terms which are related, but not interchangeable

• judgment = being able to make good choices, or choice or decision itself?
• motivation = the reason which explains why something is done or not done?

You used the term "behaviour". This is a mutable word which marries judgment and motivation.

• behaviour = the kind of things that are done or something which is done?

In our SEWP venue, mixed motives are to be expected. In general, your point is that it is not helpful to focus on anything to do with motives. However, it may be useful to look at the judgment part of behaviour.

Over time, I will try to figure out how my diff here might have been re-written. Better writing might have averted the perceived need for your fine-focus comment.

Perhaps if I had mirrored your overview in an opening section, my words might have been understood differently. --Jinki (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Municipalities of Japan

I wonder if you may want to comment here? --Jinki (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've been pretty busy with work lately and will be for the next two weeks. Gotanda (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank!!!! Gotanda, this really made my day! - TDKR Chicago 101, 11:05, 25 March 25 (UTC).

Yard Neighborhoods

I don't know about other countries. i know that it was a tradition in 19th century to built like that, and if you say it was in other countries so you can expand this article instead delet everything. and the Yard Neighborhoods are immortalized in the "Old Yishuv Court Museum" in the old city of Jerusalem. פארוק (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

School articles.

Hey, over the last couple days I noticed some articles tagged as a school project from way back in December. I untagged two because they hadn't been edited since then. But then I realized maybe I should just ask you if your class from December was still working on articles so that I can leave on or take off the tags from the December class as appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I had that on my list of things to do, but somehow it managed not to get done. Cleaned up some and will get the rest shortly. Thank you for the reminder and apologies for any inconvenience. Gotanda (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AC

Thank you very much for check some sentences that is wrong on page Assumption College. That is my high school I'm studying at Grade 10. Do you have a facebook? If you have can add me in this name. I need to have friends like you from Wikipedia. - Supanut Arunoprayote (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with Simple Wikipedia Medical Articles

Thank you for all of your comments on the medical articles we have been rewriting for Simple Wikipedia. After reading through your comments, we put a hold on our efforts for several months. We would now like to restart them.

I am wondering if you would be our ad-hoc advisor, to make sure we are following the Simple Wikipedia guidance and rules? We have read the information about Simple Wikipedia postings. Having your help will ensure we are adding as much value as possible.

Please let me know and thank you! Valswisher (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC), CEO of Content Rules, Inc.

Hi, I've been thinking about this. I have less time for this project than I used to, but I will have a look if people from Content Rules or the Translators Without Borders project edit here. I have to say that I tried to do this before, but was not able to have much of a positive effect. The first order of business should be rolling back or simplifying all of the articles imported by User:Jmh649. That needs to take place before importing new articles. There is a large and complex backlog there. When you're stuck in a hole, stop digging. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Everyone involved had the best intentions, but the target audience for the WikiMedicine project is not the same as the intended audience for Simple Wikipedia. As you mention on the Simple Talk page, it is easy to pull regular En and change a few words. But it takes hours to really simplify content - particularly complicated medical content. This is why we halted the project (stopped digging!). We have now separated the Simple Wikipedia project completely from the WikiMedicine project so that my team can focus on true simplification. I have also lined up a different physician to review our work. This is critical so that we can ensure we have not created technical mistakes during the simplification process. We will start with the current pages that are too complicated and see how it goes from there. I very much appreciate your assistance and understand you are busy. Valswisher (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Gotanda. I would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gotanda. curtaintoad | chat me! 14:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks very much for nominating me, but as you might have seen at the RfA, I felt I should decline. I haven't even had time to clean up and archive all of my talk messages! Maybe next time. I'm studying in a course that runs through April 2014 as well as working, so I'm kind of busy. If I have more time later, I'd love to help out as an admin. Thanks! Gotanda (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Geological nav boxes

Hey again. Hope you are doing well. You might be interested in this thread that I've just posted on Simple talk. Osiris (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Nice job at reverting vandalism! Thanks for the chat at my talk page, I've archived it. Love to see you around. Aaqib Hola! 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: copied pages

Hello! You said that I copied from English wiki and you tagged them for deletion as they're not in simple english. They're my first articles here so I don't know much about the wiki's policies. I just wanna ask that is the creator is the only responsible for article he created? I mean wiki is written together, if it's not in simple english you should either help me writing the article in simple english rather than tagging for deletion. I'm sorry I just asked as I'm new here. I read somewhere that "It's wiki, mistakes can be easily corrected, so don't hesitate, just do it. Other 'll correct it." If you're not , others may do that. Shouldn't you take some time to tag them? You even not said a word in welcoming sense as my talk page was just created by you. Don't you think the very first words on users talk page should be welcoming and thanking for their contributions, encourage them rather than such disappointing statements? I mean may be it's wrong according to the wiki policies but users spent their precious time on wiki. :-( Can't we work on articles without deleting them as it's very simple to change the wording, into simple, than creating a new one. I'm sorry if I just been said something I shouldn't. --Itar buttar (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't explain enough. I'll answer on your talk page, OK? Gotanda (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gotanda. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 10:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WorldTraveller101 10:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Commodore Nutt

Hello! I've taken into consideration all the comments on this article, and have given it a significant overhaul. I've simplified vocabulary and sentence structure, tightened things up and added a few images. It's nearing the three week closing date, and I'm wondering if you would give the article one more look and indicate whether it is GA ready or not. Thanks so much! Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. can you explain to me please what is wrong ? . פארוק (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on your Talk page. Gotanda (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I understand, don't need to be Angry. it will be ok if next time i will asking your help or someone else, no matter ? . פארוק (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Foothills Paper

Hi Gotanda. I know that you did some work to save this article in the past, so I thought you should know that I've nominated it for deletion – Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Foothills Paper. Osiris (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At the time it seemed worth the attempt, but time has revealed that really it isn't. Gotanda (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for having a go anyway. I'm just now learning that the good people at The Foothills Paper are not so friendly... Osiris (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey

TDKR Chicago 101 has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Nom, nom, nom... Gotanda (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, reg your note

Hello dear Gotanda, have responded to your query reg Jocelyn Orc-Saeed at my Talk Page, please. This is a bon fide edit, and not vandalism. I am a serious editor and academic and there is indeed a problem regarding the name and editions of volumes of works by this writer, here. Regs, Hamneto (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Hamneto

Hello, I hope you dont mind this, but I would please like to record here my sincere regrets that the Jocelyn Orc-Saeed article was deleted. Im sorry but I sincerely believe that 'notability' has nothing to do with Net searches etc. If it were so then we wouldnt be allowed to post information depending on sources other then the Net, at all. I wish you had tried to also understand and appreciate my genuine point of view, too. Many thanks and good wishes, sincerely, Hamneto (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Hamneto

Gakushuin University

Are you going to write an article for this university, to give the junior college page a place to redirect to? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Working on it now. I hope that is OK. If not, easy enough to delete. It's such a shame that editor is posting these horrible articles. Most of these colleges would pass notability very easily. They are household names. Some are historically important. Gotanda (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a shame. I looked at Gakushuin University, which you just created, and I see several of the same issues that are in the junior college articles. Are you patterning it after the junior college articles, or is the format coming from somewhere specific? I assume you're still working on it: you might want to put an under-construction tag on it so that no one QDs it until you're done. Anyway, thanks for trying to help with this. I'm going to reply to your comment on the RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you please tell me why you undid my edits?

Hello, this is Some Gadget Geek. I noticed that you undid several of my recent edits without providing any reason as to why you did so. Would it be kind of you to please explain your reasoning behind your actions? Thank you very much, << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits you made did not improve the articles and in some cases made them worse. For example the game Taboo is not an example of a taboo as you wrote. The disambig page for Tramway was more useful than a redirect. Red links are OK. Irrelevant information about Javascript made the Open Office article harder to read. Local slang use or jokey use of parking lot is not simple. I removed your changes to improve the articles and keep them simpleGotanda (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)