Ixfd64

Welcome

Hello, Ixfd64, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes.

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

• Help
• Rules
• Links to useful pages
• How to write Simple English pages
• How to copy from another Wikipedia

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested pages or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.

Good luck and happy changing! Savh·^{Tell me} 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

info

Hi, Ixfd64. I looked at our manual of style and other places and picked out a few things that tend to "bite" new users here. Not all of these relate to vandalism, but I thought it would be helpful to mention them.

• We have a couple of different standard headings. Instead of "See also", we use "Related pages". Instead of "External links", we use "Other websites".
• We use the word "movie" instead of "film" when talking about motion pictures. "Film" can be used for the actual medium that a movie is (or at least used to be) recorded onto. It can also be used for the act of recording the movie.
• Sometimes an editor changes text in an article to something that sounds perfectly normal, but which makes it more complex. It could be changing individual words to words that are more common, but not as simple. It could be combining sentences into compound sentences that read more like what you'd hear in everyday English. That kind of change is done in good faith, but can often be reverted (although not usually with rollback) because it goes against the whole point of this Wikipedia.
• There are things besides the language that we keep simple here. For example, when creating a new category, we want at least three entries in it right away. That is to keep our category tree from having long branches of single-entry categories, which can make it harder to find things. The exception to this is certain chronology categories, including the ones for births and deaths by year.

I think there are some other things, but that's all I can think of right now. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages gives some specific information about what is considered simple language. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To add to that, I think some topics will always be difficult to put into simple English terms, especially if they are very scientific or technical in nature. This is probably the case for many math, physics and engineering articles, etc. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't addressing the general topic of using simple language, because I was pretty sure you understood that! But, yes, that is an issue. We usually address that by linking complex terms. We have some editors who work in those areas a lot, and they have their opinions on what is simple enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of see what you mean, especially with regards to the third point. For example, maintaining content that is simple enough for everyone to understand would often require points to be reiterated. An editor from the regular English Wikipedia may see them as redundant and "fix" them in good faith without realizing that it it goes against the guidelines here. --Ixfd64 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I remembered a couple of other things that are significantly different here. One is that we discourage unlinking redlinked terms. We use the red links as a way to see what articles we're missing. The more times a term is redlinked, the higher it appears at Special:WantedPages. We can look at Special:WantedPages to get ideas for good pages to create. We probably wouldn't consider unlinking these terms vandalism, though, unless an editor kept unlinking them many times after being asked not to.

The other is that we manage our stub categories more strictly than English Wikipedia. Here, we want as few stub categories as possible. We don't consider it helpful to have to have stub categories just because there are a lot of pages that would fit them. We don't need the stub categories to duplicate the regular article categories. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project, you can get an idea of what I'm talking about from the discussions we've had when new stub categories were requested. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

leave note on talk pages

When you revert undoubted vandalism, please leave a suitable warning notice on their talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• That is something I normally do. However, I didn't think it was necessary in this case because the user had already been reported. Also, the username ("I destroy work") suggests that the user was here just to cause trouble. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ichgam

Hello, I saw you reverted my edit on page, Ichgam, saying that we don't use interwiki links in the articles anymore. Then why it is written at WP:GA?#Requirements for good articles that it must have one interwiki link? –Hulged ⟨†^|k⟩ 16:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is probably meaning one interwiki link on wikidata, nowadays. WP:GA doesn't say that the interwiki links have to be on the page and these links should always go on wikidata now. --Belwine (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Belwine, ok! –Hulged ⟨†^|k⟩ 16:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki links were deprecated in February 2013. See en:Help:Interwiki linking#Interlanguage links. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Thank you for changing Wikipedia. We welcome all changes, but we can have only changes that are in simple English, and your new changes to "Nuclear power" were not simple. Please see Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages so you can write more simply in the future. Thank you. PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: I was reverting this edit by 205.178.233.46 (talk · contribs) as it deleted a word without an explanation. Because the user made the second edit while I was reverting the first one, Twinkle ended up reverting both edits. The second edit didn't make much sense either as it left a broken sentence. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

When you do that you need to verify that the vandalism or what not was not re-introduced into the article. In this example, when I reverted it, it removed 'fissionable' as that is not a simple English term. PotsdamLamb (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick deletion of 2044

The page you wrote, 2044, has been selected for quick deletion. 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. You can find more information about the reason here. PotsdamLamb (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)