Every now & then we get editors changing words on the basis of their ideas on what is simple. Words also have to be accurate (we are an encyclopedia).

  • Big: certainly simple and popular with children, but a term almost never to be used about living things. Is a giraffe bigger than an elephant? Think about it. It is almost always better to use a more exact word, such as longer, heavier. Is a star big? Does that mean its apparent size or its intrinsic size? Ditto stars being bright.
  • Rich is an ambiguous word. A cake can be rich, and a person can be rich. However, only a person can be wealthy, so prefer that word. Neither word is on the extended list of simple words, incidentally, so use the more precise word.
  • Very: another childhood favourite. In spoken English it is an intensifier, but it has almost no function in prose. It may be the most frequent word copy editors cut out as redundant.
  • Die: we all die, but species become extinct.
Now here's the tricky bit. Technically, a species which is not extinct is extant. Extant is the opposite of extinct. However it is a very rare word, and we use the common word "living". So we talk about living species. It sounds natural, and is right for us.
  • Animal: that includes jellyfish and beetles. If you mean mammals, say so.
  • Reside: On Simple you don't reside somewhere, you live there.
  • Rare: an essential word in ecology, and supported by definitions in the literature. Steaks can also be rare, but that would not be good to use on Simple.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

please help translate this message into the local language
  The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

Carom billiardsEdit

I've put this discussion on the talk page of Carom billiards. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope TalaEdit

Hi again! I'm going to take a look at billiards in a moment, but I noticed that you deleted Hope Tala, an article currently at RFD. While I agree that articles obviously not meeting the scope of the project should be deleted, I felt that Hope Tala had a legitimate reason to be included on the project. She is getting quite a bit of attention and significant coverage in the UK and is scheduled at a major festival in France later this year. Do you think that that article is recoverable so that it can be worked on? Best, Griff (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it seems to me that if the biog being discussed on En wiki is kept, then we should do likewise. We can safely follow En in cases of specialised expertise. The present status of the En wiki draft is "waiting for review". Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star systemEdit

I've put this discussion on the talk page of Star system. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I've noticed that you're interested in biology topics, so I was wondering if you could review the article on osmoregulation that I expanded. Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you couldn't have chosen a more difficult topic! Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing what I sayEdit

Could you do me a favor and not edit what I say. It is one thing to correct an edit to an article or fixing an error in how something is rendered ( [blah]] instead of [[blah]] ), but to edit my opinion on a matter is entirely different even if it is just poor spelling/typos. --Creol(talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do apologise. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Female scientistsEdit

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

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

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need your opinionEdit

Hi, I noticed your watchfulness relating to my recent edits. So, could you look at this edit? Did not I go too far this time? (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, my thoughts are these:
1. In general, a word like "abysmal" would be changed as you suggest. But this is a direct quotation of something published elsewhere. In that case, we leave the words unchanged. Sometimes the word can be explained after the quote, or in a footnote. Sometimes a quote can be shortened by using ... where words have been left out.
2. "Used" instead of "employed" is good, in this context. But the sentence is far too long, and needs to be broken down into two or three sentences. Try putting a full stop after U.S. and adjusting the rest of the sentence. Also, you see I write U.S. with full points after each letter. That's a formality which does not increase difficulty, but shows respect for the traditional way of writing used in most books. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A thought added later. It's quite time-consuming to edit properly, so choose your time wisely. Don't try to do something complex until you have time to do it well. I see a lot of editing which has been done too quickly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. I am really impressed with you response. So I corrected the article (hopefully) according to your suggestions. Though I have no idea if I have met your expectations. Thank you :-) BTW, do you see anything wrong or unnatural in my English? (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've adjusted your page Human rights in Uzbekistan to illustrate how to do it in Simple English. Move into the active tense whenever possible. Oh, goodness, I see we don't have a page titled "Active tense". How did that happen? Maybe it's called something else. I've put in a link. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Active voice? Oh, definitely. I even felt that something was wrong. Now I see that instead of "this edit is made after consulting with...", I could have written: "I made this edit after consulting with...". Thank you for pointing this out. I really appreciate your advice. (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think it's usually called active voice. There is an article for that (voice (grammar)), but it mostly talks about the passive voice. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Lights and freedom A very good link. Thanks :-) (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think Earth was demoted from GAEdit

You removed the good article tag from Earth: Special:PermanentLink/7619721 but I think it was still supposed to be a good article. It was promoted here: Special:PermanentLink/1672992 after this discussion: Wikipedia:Proposed good articles/Archive 6#Earth 4, and I don't see any evidence that it was demoted. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently I did that, and my comments were put on the talk page. The core of it was the explanation of why the Earth goes round the Sun, which is inadequate. Apparently, from my comment, I thought it had been delisted. Sorry. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(But it should have been delisted, because that is a very serious complaint)! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Father's dayEdit

Hi, Can you please hide this edit because it contains bad and offensive language, thanks. Kiro Bassem (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's just vandalism, we don't hide that. Obscene language against a person would be different. Others will read this, and they can make their own minds up. I think hiding bad edits is a last resort, but thank you for taking an interest. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think Eemium should be Eemian. Lights and freedom (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do you think you could attempt to simplify the article threat? A few issues stood out:

  • "A threat is basically a declaration of intent to cause punishment or harm or loss on another." - the words "declaration" and "intent" make it hard to read
  • "one that is promises harm that cannot or will not actually be inflicted." - mainly the word "inflicted"
  • "To encourage compliance" - the word "compliance"
  • "The threat part may be implied, yet effective." - the words "implied" and "effective"

Maybe changing from passive voice to active voice would help? Lights and freedom (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't think it was that bad, except for the introduction, which I re-wrote. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good now. I just thought, if the article doesn't use simple words, what's the point? Lights and freedom (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes! Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Web host violationEdit

Does this wiki have a webhost violation policy? I think this page should be deleted. What do you think? This user tried to create this article in several wikis. He is blocked in bnwiki for x-wiki spamming. —Yahya (talkcontribs.) 13:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So long as the article is in one if his sub-pages {User:forward-slanting slash) it does not appear on the general wiki as a page. If the user is not using the facility at the present, maybe no problem. But the point about his block may be relevant. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EFEM article deletionEdit

User:Macdonald-ross Hello Sir quick question why did you delete article EFEM with 17 refereces could you please stop abusing with your privileges this artist is notable and now i will call all administrators in talk page to see if this article has criteria you cant do this https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFEM92.105.153.188 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) IP editor - First this is not misuse of any administrator rights. Secondly back in May this article was brought up as a request for deletion Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/EFEM and it was deleted per policy as you can see in the RfD. If the article does not have reliable and trustworthy sources then it does not meet the criteria needed to be on Wikipedia. Lastly stating that an admin has abused their privileges and stating you are gonna have other administrators come to this discussion can be seen as violating the policy of assuming good faith. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are wrong this artist has reliable, trustworthy sources if you think Albanian press are not reliable you are wrong many of this tv news sources has wiki already they are all reliable before it was deleted because of Racism So he has Albanian Wikipedia already and he has wikidata but his name sometimes does not show on google because it has many business Similar name as restaurant company and others now i can tag here many wiki that has less niformations then this artist please do not use your privileges just because you can Kepp the article because it meets the criteria he is public figure in albania kosovo Nord macedonien Montenegro (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
check this please is in english just ju can search for for rtv21 on wikipedia he is on this and you can also read in englsih http://en.rtv21.tv/efem-publikon-kengen-e-re-shake-it/ (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was not a one person decision. This was a decision made by the community here on Wikipedia. You can ask to have it go to Wikipedia:Deletion review to request review, however, since it is already on there with a consensus of delete as well, and based on the references you listed I personally do not see this status changing. I would encourage you to not push this as the exact same things you are saying here you said under a different IP. I say this because of what words and references you are giving match word for word. This can immediately get you blocked. At this point I will not respond any further as this should now go to an admin. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 23:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can already see there was also 3 people for to keep it but Unfortunately was deleted could you sugest this article what should be diferent for this article to meet criteria on your opinon what should be changed thank You (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go to WP:DRV if you have a problem with deletion. It was deleted based on consensus. The argument of basing notability on the number of sources is invalid unless it meets one of the notability criteria. BRP ever 23:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
could you please list for me one notability criteria which one is more important which you consider, for example searching in google the name of the artist and if it shows nothing, then this means is not notable ? because press in Albanian langue google doesn't detect it this is the problem
Thank You (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot do that. Criteria is set by community after community consensus.-- BRP ever 00:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources for medicine articlesEdit

Hi Mac. I think you've worked a lot on medical articles, or so it seems from the award on your talk page. On enwiki, they have strict requirements for the sources at en:WP:MEDRS, so much that I'm scared to edit them. A lot of medical articles here have no sources at all. Do we have to follow that guideline, or can we use websites like Mayo Clinic and National Institutes of Health instead? Lights and freedom (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can use NIH and Mayo Clinic as sources happily. Probably En has formed their system to prevent the huge commercial interests from getting their foot into En pages. Nevertheless, we need to be aware that medicine is perhaps the most critical topic with respect to advertisements. Incidentally, pages which describe how the body works are not really medical pages, just general information which everyone should have. Pages that describe illnesses and above all treatments are where the advertisement issue may be a live one. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thanks. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom When you use those sites they have their sources used (typically at the bottom or where the portion of the article ends) and you can dive into those and use those as sources if you wanted to as well. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 06:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seem that sources on this wiki don't need to be in Simple English - am I right? If so why not just use the same en:WP:MEDRS sources the enwiki article about the subject uses? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously, there is a reason, and the reason is: to be meaningful, a source has to be accessible to the reader. "Accessible" means it can be found, read and understood by the user. Ask yourself whether the average Simple reader is going to cope with sources which (I assure you) tax the best medical students at university level. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pull TP and EmailEdit

Can you pull them on 2A01:B340:63:FEC5:18F0:4E9A:6B68:F8D7 please? Thx Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent blockEdit

Are you sure you want to block that IP address indefinitely? I know that the edits were bad but we don't normally block IP addresses for that long, do we? Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Hockeycatcat Sometimes it can be indefinite based on the history and how many times they have been blocked. There may be something in the background we don’t know because we don’t have access to those pages. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 09:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, IPs should never be blocked indefinitely because IPs change. Even proxies are only blocked for a few years at most. Apart from deleted contributions, there is nothing more admins can see compared to non-admins. And this IP in particular only edited today. --Ferien (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien Unless it is static to that user and they are using it for some type of evasion. I see the stewards doing it all the time. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 09:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ferien is correct; I've changed it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even for very long-term users, you don't need to block for indefinite. That is pretty much the only exception enwiki describes but I don't think indef blocks are even appropriate for that. If things get really really bad, then you could block for years at a time instead. On enwiki, where indefinite blocks are sometimes used on purpose, there has only been one IP indefinite block in 2022, and by the looks of it, it was an accident! --Ferien (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien There are exceptions listed lol Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 09:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, excuse me, what does C.E. mean? N1TH Music (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) It stands for Copy Edit. Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb And were my edits considered overdetailed? N1TH Music (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think this is a perfectly good page as it is now, and needs no further changes. Move on. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well as is, there's no established notability. The place isn't populated now and before I discovered the census data I had made an article on enWiki which was deleted for not being notable. It's not a populated place now, it isn't a very important forest, without the historical sources (e.g the census data) there's nothing or real substance in the article. Granted there are some modern sources which can talk about the geography, history, conservation and recreation of the area, but again nobody cares about the history of a forest but a former settlement matters more. N1TH Music (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Take to RfD if not satisfied. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Macdonald-ross The Data is there, the data which proves notability, there's no need to take it to Rfd if we just include the necessary details in the article. I've simplified it a bit. Removing the decades without a clear table as a reference, and I'm sure it's ok now. (Just needs more a little expanding. N1TH Music (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LaFlia ContenidosEdit

Being dealt with in WP:RFU. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of Priyanka Rani JoshiEdit

Hi there, I saw that you quickly deleted one of the pages that I created, and I didn't even get any notifications regarding it. She passed WP:MODEL and WP:BIO and has won the Miss Nepal World title. I request you to restore the page.  DIVINE  09:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's obvious that the proposer and myself did not think notability was established. The place to consider this would be WP:Deletion review. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breach (band)Edit

Could you please undelete Breach (band)? It wasn't a redirect... Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page still does not establish the band's notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block extensionEdit

In your recent block, the IPs making the racist edits are from this IPv6 range: 2607:FEA8:FE10:8045:0:0:0:0/64, could you extend the block to that range? thanks. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 08:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's all of them!Edit

Thank you for deleting all those pages! Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 17:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving your TPEdit

Hi Mac,

So the logs of PDLBotArchiver (the automated bot to archive pages) show that it cannot archive your talk page due to the ending of your config. Can you move the closing }} to their own line below it. You can see an example at User_talk:PotsdamLamb/testarchive/mac. This will allow it to be archived on the next run at 0:00 UTC. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 17:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I saw your changes. I meant on your Miszabot/config at the top of your page when in edit mode, it should look like |minthreadstoarchive = 1
I hope that helps. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick random questionEdit

I'm not sure if I talk about this to you, but have you seen Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis pop up on the Very Good Article section of the main page? I haven't seen it yet so I'm not sure her selected article is queued to appear on the main page? Thanks! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's OK, but Ep is really in charge of this section! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello @Macdonald-ross, I made a request on WP:RFP for patroller rights. It's five days past but no response came. Can you review my request? DRC (User:TTP1233) (talk . e-mail . contrib) 06:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The delay might have something to do with your history. A Checkuser might be needed in your case. They will notice your request. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies but I didn't get it. Are you relating something to my enwiki block? DRC (User:TTP1233) (talk . e-mail . contrib) 09:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am sorry for my previous actions last month. DerekSquared (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delation page Sheru photographyEdit

Hi there, I saw that you quickly deleted one of the pages that I created with notably and veryfied publication reference, which is deleted but I create because that is good article and I didn't even get any notifications regarding it. I request you to restore the page. 2409:4056:E11:14FF:15A6:D1A:B1D5:E101 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I will not. The page is effectively an advertisement, and has been deleted five times before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm already aware of the advertisement effectively page, so please don't tell a lie that page is effectively an advertisement, I did write that article with Wikipedia guidelines. But you broke the guidelines rule. Kullu story (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amir zobdeh wikiEdit

Greetings and Regards I am the program manager of Mr. Amir Zobdeh I wanted to know what is the reason why we write their wiki and you delete it for no reason? They are the first photomodels of Iran and these documents are available on Google as well as the global IMDB site Splendid Best regards (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically, we are not a place for advertisements. IMDB and Google are. Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia deletion rules can be found under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Mr Mac!!!Edit

Yes, you are right But do you think that our text about Mr. Amir Zobdeh was propaganda? A line and text, but correct And what was the achievement of the first Iranian photo model in Iran, is it advertising? And finally, can you introduce us to someone who will create Mr. Amir Zobdeh page on Wiki? (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles, Prince of WalesEdit

I am curious as to why you reverted a removal of factual errors twice on this article? The Queen is not dead, or at the very least, her death has not been reported on so we cannot assume that she is dead. --Ferien (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry for that. I'm not often misled in this way. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's alright. Mistakes happen. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QD G8Edit

Hello, I don't think this was a valid deletion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you put it forward for quick deletion! If you want it discussed, then put it forward again for discussion. I've no objection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had only requested deletion for the userpage as far as I can see, while the talk page had a notification of that nomination. Thanks for restoring it anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gujarat Ki Aawaz MainEdit

Hi, Mac. Since you QD'd this article while there was an open RFD, would you please close the rfd? I think people actually wanted the rfd to complete so we'd have the precedent. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) If you are going to quick delete mid-RfD, which is almost always a bad idea, at least close it. I've informed you of this before, at User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 29#Deleting pages at RfD and I'm curious on why you're still doing it and not closing the RfDs in question, while not usually giving a good explanation as to why the RfD articles you quick delete had to be deleted so quickly. --Ferien (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of The end justifies the meansEdit

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

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

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyromaniacs and

Hi, Pyromaniacs had some content in and is not eligible for A1. Please could you restore it. A lot of that IP's contributions seemed to be useful too... I'm curious why you blocked them at all, let alone for 2 weeks for creating four pages, half of which were good, without any warning whatsoever? --Ferien (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's just a ten-word dicdef, not even an article. But I have restored it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien There is also Pyromania. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lights and freedom: thanks, I've just created a redirect. --Ferien (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carl Zohan (actor)Edit


I have noticed you deleted an article name Carl Zohan. I understand, but the problem is someone wrote an article with this name last year and that article has been deleted due to notability.

Because of this, the new article was probably you deleted with the previous reason.

So I can't create article just named Carl Zohan. The one I want to write an article about has enough media coverage. He is an actor, and obviously he is a notable person.

So I want to create a new article, and I want to use title with person name like (actor/film actor) etc, waiting for your reply.

Thank you. Frryan404 (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, go ahead. It sounds fine as a plan. But I see you have a whole series of pages which have been flagged. You should attend to our objections to those pages, and get to understand why they have been flagged or deleted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Thanks for the reply, listen I'm new on Wikipedia. I just joined 9month ago. I have already written many articles, some active and some deleted. I'm not sure why some of my article are flagged. But I tried my best to make standard.

Anyway thank you. Frryan404 (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Native Americans"Edit

I think this term for what ordinary people call "indians" is a bit precious. It's certainly not simple. Ordinary people in the U.S. use "indian reservation" as a term. I've travelled in about 15 of the states in the U.S. so I have some experience of how the language is used in various places.

Without meaning any disrespect to a downtrodden people, I think we should be careful of using terms which are (a) more complex linguistically, and (b) psychologically distancing from the reality. Of course, I accept that in academia, many words in frequent use in the U.S. are simply banned. But U.S. universities are strange places, not at all characteristic of how ordinary people speak. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't only academics who use the term. Just because "ordinary" people speak a certain way doesn't make it correct; "ordinary" people in the US use a lot of incorrect language, as I often have to explain to my ESL students.
Ah well, that of course is so true! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this context, the term "Indians" (upper case, if you please) is not only offensive, it is ambiguous. For that latter reason alone, we should use "Native American". Saying that that's "precious" is a bit offensive in itself; it's actually respectful. In the UK, you may not understand this because you may not have the cultural issues the US has of indigenous people being called by offensive and/or inaccurate terms because people who came from elsewhere either were ignorant or wanted to dehumanize them.
And by the way, why are you talking to yourself? :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is the Simple-English Wikipedia, we also have to account for the 'other' common meaning that the term 'Indians' mean. It majorly refers to the 'People of India'. We shouldn't confuse people, so we must always try to use the exact words (here, Native Americans) wherever possible.
I have come round to agreeing with this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I also appreciate the fact that you're bold enough to talk to yourself. It's often the best way to resolve problems and reflect on different viewpoints. :) Sugeeth Jayaraj (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I nearly had a heart attack! Finally I got back my old settings. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving the Mitosis and Meiosis pagesEdit

I see that you reverted my recent edits to the Mitosis and Meiosis pages. I have some expertise in teaching these topics (see my Useful Genetics videos and other resources), and think these pages can be significantly improved. Could we discuss this at the Mitosis and Meiosis Talk pages or at my new Simple Wikipedia user page? Rosieredfield (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the things which editors here need to bear in mind is that our main readership is schoolchildren, not undergraduates, and certainly not postgraduates. Simple was set up because so many of the main WP was so complex (and also so badly written) that it was not doing well at reaching school students. Also, many biology teachers don't know much genetics! So the question arises, not of what we know, but what is it sensible to put before this ill-defined audience. However, I certainly don't intend to obstruct your editing. Go ahead, and let's see where we get to! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving the Sustainable Development PageEdit

I see that you reverted my recent edits to the Sustainable Development page. For the time-being, I've reverted your edit. It would be good to know how I should improve my edit, so that I can correct myself and implement your suggestions soon on other pages as well. Sugeeth Jayaraj (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small change, I’ve reverted it to your edit until I can get further guidance and consensus. P.S. Sorry for the confusion :) Sugeeth Jayaraj (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

onestrike on User:PlanespotterA320Edit

Per WP:ONESTRIKE && WP:EVASION, PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs) is banned from editting English Wikipedia before blocked here, the block of this user may be extended to indef. Lemonaka (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scops owlEdit

Hey, Mac. I was actually working on simplifying Scops owl when you deleted it. I was just doing it one section at a time, as marked in my change descriptions. I did not get up from my computer or leave it alone unsimplified. Is it possible for you to put it back in its most recent form or does the site structure require that I start over? I'm going to go run some errands. I'll check on it when I get back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can see from my change history, I did Principe scops owl and the template for Otus last night. It's connected to a recent scientific event. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly suggest you work on a subpage of your user-page first. Use "Name of user/title of subpage". Macdonald-ross (talk)
Oh yes, I do that for very long articles when it's not practical to get it all done in one sitting. So is it possible to turn it back or do I have to start over? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think about shortening long articles to the essential issues. It's not just words which cause difficulties to the reader, it's the sheer quantity of prose. That often is easy to do because En wiki pages have so much in them which is not essential for understanding. Or, if you do decide for a very long page, then do it piece by piece, otherwise you will get overwhelmed. You can ignore what I say, but I do know what I'm suggesting does work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add your comments to the others I've seen here on Simple. Would you please put the article back so I can finish working on it or does Simple's structure not support that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I very much recommend that you work on a shorter version. En wiki works on a "everything but the kitchen sink" basis. We have to think "How much detail do our readers need to have?". However, I will restore the page, but with misgivings. I think you are not listening to me, but we shall see. Sheer length is an obstacle to many young readers. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what kind of day you've had so far, but do not accuse me of not listening to you. When you're ready, consider rereading this conversation. Thanks for putting the article back. I'll get to it today. And remember, you're welcome to work on it too and remove any content you find unnecessary. Shared authorship all around. Darkfrog24 (talk)
I went through it pretty thoroughly and I think I found what might have been tripping your "too complex" meter: There must have been some fight or other conflict on en.wiki about screech vs scops owls. The earliest version of en:Scops owl lists "Screech owl" as just the North American name for them. This wasn't even ten years after the first DNA studies suggested they weren't really two separate genera. So the current en.wiki version is built to deflect or satisfy any argument that there shouldn't be two separate articles, an issue we don't have over here. I took out most of the stuff about screech owls and moved some of it to screech owl. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there. I'm trying to simplify Lancet MMR autism fraud from en.wiki in my secondary sandbox. I was wondering if you could maybe take a look at it and help me simplify it? Derpdart56 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an interesting and important case of a type of scam which has become much more common on the web. It shows how gullible people are in believing a smart story.
I don't know how much time I have to give, but I will keep an eye open on your progress with this topic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I can mention the En wiki page "Blood-injection-injury type phobia", and the 19th century resistance to cowpox variolation and vaccination, and the list of phobias on En wiki. I do not have Silverstein, Arthur M. (2009). A History of Immunology (2nd ed.). Academic Press. p. 293. ISBN 9780080919461, but I wish I did! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helping with a research project in SimplificationEdit

Hello Macdonald-ross,

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

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

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

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

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

Philippe Laban

You can check my previous academic publications (one of which is on Simplification) on this website: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fR5t200AAAAJ Philippelaban (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This wiki started with the work of C.K. Ogden in the 1910s and 1920s. The Science Dictionary in Basic English is a post-WWII (1965) update of this idea. What we have found is that Basic English is a good starting point, but is unable to help in many areas which were unforseen in the 1920s. Science, and modern science-based technology, is the most transformative activity in our society by far. Writing simply on science can be done, but it does need quite deep subject-matter understanding.
Main En wiki is a "throw it all in except the kitchen sink"-type approach. There are some areas of En wiki where this is not true: there are some beautifully written pages on music, for example. Basically, though, it's the home of bad English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Macdonald-ross,
Thanks for replying, and providing more background on Simple Wikipedia's creation. I did not know the origin story, and that it was started based on C.K. Ogden's work, and that is very interesting. I can understand why it had to evolve and be more "flexible".
We are creating a resource where we analyze the types of edits that occur on Simple Wikipedia (for example lexical, syntactic, background insertion, etc). Do you think you would be interested in participating? I understand if you are not or do not have the time.
If you are interested let me know, or reach out by email (phillab@berkeley.edu) and I am happy to tell you more.
Thanks again for replying and telling me more about the origins of Simple Wikipedia. Philippelaban (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, thank you. On a longish visit to the USA years ago, I visited about seven universities. What I saw convinced me that the habit in junior classes of testing by MCQs damages the development of writing skills (that is, writing continuous prose). So when Simple was started, I saw an opportunity to do something about WP (which is largely peopled by the U.S. academic system). Simple had used the work of C.K. Ogden as the basis for a simplified version of WP. It was (and still is) clear that the language of WP was itself one of the obstacles to many readers. It was soon clear to us here that Ogden did not have all the answers, but his attempt showed what some of the problems are. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plant taxonomyEdit

Hi Mac, I recently changed something, and I realized I should have asked you about it before. I removed Category:Magnoliopsida (the dicots) and separated the contents into Category:Eudicots, Category:Magnoliids, and a few smaller groups, because dicots are paraphyletic (even that article says "Magnoliopsida" is no longer used) and the new categories match the cladistics. This will also match enwiki, and if people write new plant articles, they will probably use the new groupings. Do you think it's okay if we use the new system for categories, and if we change the taxoboxes on articles to use "Eudicots" or "Magnoliids" instead of "Magnoliopsida"?

This shouldn't cause many other changes, because the APG system doesn't use taxa above the rank of order, and the orders should stay pretty much the same. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that seems sensible. Go ahead and make the changes you suggest. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will start replacing the taxoboxes for plants with the automatic taxoboxes that use the new system. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How you find referencesEdit

I have been wondering how you are able to find references for everything. Do you just know what book a topic will be mentioned in, then search through the book until you find the fact you want? Do you read through a particular book, and along the way, look for information that you could add to Wikipedia? Do you somehow search for the information online? Thanks, Lights and freedom (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, originally I used university libraries. As time went by, I developed my own library on subjects I was interested in (I have rather a large library now!). Also, I look at main WP pages to see what they are using as references. Sometimes the science correspondents in magazines, or the BBC, give sources. And, of course, sometimes I use sources from En wiki. I try not to use sources I have not read, but I suppose about 30% or so I have copied on trust. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you again. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of InterlinguaEdit

Could you please let me retrieve the article you just deleted? I was working on it. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Proposed demotion for Jackie OEdit

Thanks for your help trying to fix it. Nobody seems interested in bringing it up to VGA quality. Another editor tagged it complex, so nominated for demotion. --Gotanda (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How was Volgodonsk a "close copy" and "unsimplified"? I simplified it a lot, and provided links to words that were harder to understand. InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 13:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing on the page was enough to justify quick deletion. InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 13:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's almost word for word with the En wiki version as far as it goes. However, I agree it is not the most difficult page, and another editor might not have deleted it. I'll let someone else judge. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Female scientistsEdit

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Category:Female scientists and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C. E. TaylorEdit

I see you deleted the page C. E. Taylor. You deleted it without a discussion and without notifying me (the creator). As the article was based on multiple secondary sources and she was a fencer at one earliest international women's fencing competitions, I think an AfD should have taken place. So can you please restore the article and start an AfD. And another question, did you delete more of my articles? SportsOlympic (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You may want to look at the edits by CRAZY PANTHERMAN (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if they make sense, especially their edits listing Synapsida as a class and Therapsida as an order. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have attended to Synapsida and Therapsida after checking with the En wiki pages. I couldn't possibly do the huge number of pages he has edited. It's a problem when editors are so manic. The changes I had to make were of the consistency/expression type rather than simply factual. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why did you say Colourblocks is fake or a hoax in the deletion log? It’s a real show. Tristan Jon August Sonnier (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I was just solving some grammar issues with a page which was just created and I realized you deleted a significant portion of it. Why exactly ?

Populares rome (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Populares rome: If you do not intend to simplify the content yourself, you really shouldn't be adding it. See WP:HOW for help with doing this. --IWI (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you delete all the articles i created? (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellowstone visitors graphEdit

Is it just me, or does it look weird to have that tiny chart in the middle of the page surrounded by white space? At Yellowstone National Park#Tourism I wonder if it should be bigger, or to the side. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Lights and freedom: I just made it bigger so people can read it. If you think a different size or placement would be better, go ahead and be bold! -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathan Daniel RossEdit

You deleted the page, Jonathan Daniel Ross

It's my first time editing here, and i thought i would keep improving it before publishing it like others. And you said, it's not The page is about a person, group, company, product or website, and does not claim notability) But The page is about a person and i will add reliable source to it to make it notable Dcraigo (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to use the Article Wizard to create a draft without fear of deletion due to the A-criteria. You should first think if it is notable or not, though. Justarandomamerican (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ohh okay
Then, what should i do about the page that has been deleted? Justarandomamerican Dcraigo (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross What should i do? Dcraigo (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make a draft in your user space, and then tel one of us to review it. But if the subject's not notable, getting it to a regular article about the subject is difficult. Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay Dcraigo (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon i have make a draft, can you help me to check it out
i dont know if should add more url or article to it Dcraigo (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mac. I think you meant to nominate Jonathan D. Ross at RfD, but the page was not created; just letting you know. --IWI (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snowshoe hareEdit

I reverted an old edit of yours here but accidentally didn't leave a summary. I did so because I think a short stub is better than a redirect to promote expansion. --IWI (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you do that, you should also bring over the basic facts from En wiki so that our page has some real content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA VGA has changedEdit

Hi, you commented on or edited one or more articles that are up for GA VGA review. The system now requires !votes within a shorter period of time, which has already elapsed, but seems there is a bit of a grace period. Without at least five editors voting (up or down), no articles can be promoted. Please have a look at here [1]. Thank you, Gotanda (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I simplified Spaghettification from en.wiki, and I was wondering if you could tell me how I did on that. Thanks. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect this is not well enough established to be on Simple, but I am not an expert on the subject-matter. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I saw that you deleted Verdis and I am unsure as to why? I saw the reason as being similar to previously deleted content but it was re-written with similarity to the Liberland article. Could it be restored? MicroSupporter (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2023 ([UTC)

Recreation of a not-notable page with same or similar content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it would be similar as they are both micronations. Also, the sources involved RTL, Pagina/12, LaNacion, myLondon, Metro (UK), etc all of which are very notable sources. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gamal Abdel NasserEdit

Hey, I noticed that you removed the changes made in the Gamal Abdel Nasser page, I appreciate the comment and will try to improve them. However, I would also appreciate if you could point out more specifically where we are changing the tone and what language is considered complex English, as we have made previous changes before to fit into both categories, when a previous user removed all the work done. For the future, it would be more beneficial to point them out and advise how change could be made instead of removing all the content we worked hard for. We are really trying our best me and my colleague @Jaime Méndez de Vigo as it is an important university project and we are first time users in wikipedia.

I'm afraid I don't have time to do this thoroughly. I recommend you read carefully the English wiki version to make sure you are acquainted with all the angles. To be honest, I wouldn't advise a newcomer to start with such a complex and controversial biography. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think it's known by now that lizards are paraphyletic, so it might not make sense to call them a suborder (Lacertilia or Sauria). As you wrote most the taxonomy, what do you think about changing this? Lights and freedom (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, En wiki uses "Lizard", and redirects Lacertilia to lizard. Because we are simple, I followed that example. So long as we make it clear that lizards and snakes are fundamentally the same group (and I think we do) then that's sound science. We have to have separate pages on "lizard" and "snake" because they are the two terms which people understandably search for. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undelete Nvidia RTX 4000 SFF Ada GenerationEdit

You have deleted this page with reason G11 (Advertising). Was this a mistake? This article is written in encyclopedic format. If so, can you undelete this article? Xeverything11 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Xeverything11: You can make undelete requests at WP:Deletion review. I have looked at the article that was deleted, and I agree that it didn't look like advertising. It should, however, have at least one reference. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it repeatedly mention Nvidia in the course of just a few lines, including the title. I have no objection in principle to articles about software, even proprietary software. If the author wants to put the information onto the Nvidia page, along with all the other proprietary items, I would have no objection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quadro naming was dropped in Nvidia workstation GPUs since Ampere (2020). Xeverything11 (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made a request at WP:Deletion review. Xeverything11 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alisa GenevieveEdit

Would you consider blocking Alisa Genevieve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Lights and freedom (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And maybe deleting their pages? Lights and freedom (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What this gives us is a breathing-space. I agree the person is probably acting as a PR agent, promoting people without showing their notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of Stoke-upon-TrentEdit

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

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Stoke-upon-Trent and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]