User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Your first barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I am giving you this award for being a great new editor and helping write articles in Simple English. Well done and keep up the good work. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple English

Writing in Simple is not an easy task, so all your contributions are valued. I look forward to seeing how you can improve Evolution. This tool [1] is a good way to check how you are going. Just put in the title of the page preceded by simple eg. simple:Evolution and it will give you a readability score. This assumes that the page is actually written in a coherent way, and it can be misleading if the page has a lot of technical jargon. I try to aim for a Flesch reading ease score of about 70. This is a Readers Digest or Voice of America standard of difficulty. Getting a higher score usually means compromising the meaning too much. Have fun, and please ask if you have any questions. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mimicry

Hello, Macdonald-ross, welcome to Simple. I have left a few comments about Mimicry on the artice's talk page. You have done good work, but I think that the article needs to have more text; I have not done any measurements, but I think it is just at the required 3.5k, or below them, if you could add a few things this would probably be easy to fix. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. :) --Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Left a comment on User:The Rambling Mans talk page for a review; he is one of the few people who write very good reviews. In my opinion, the article is definitely GA quality now. Since the process was recentrly changed though I am no longer up ot day as to ohw it works. You did very good work, same as with evolution.--Eptalon (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Mimicry

Hey there Macdonald-ross!

I am delighted to inform you that I have closed your recent PGA nomination, Mimicry, as a successful one - Mimicry is therefore now a Good Article, congratulatons!

Please keep up the great work :).

Regards,

Goblin 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Genetic variation?

Hello, I recently edited Meiosis, which also links to something called genetic variation (red-link at the time of this writing). I was just wondering, since you did Evolution and Mimicry so well... :) - All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Crab(s)

Hello, I have not done the "merge" yet (replace page which is to be merged with a redirect to where to merge it to, after "consolidating" the content to the new page, if worthwhile). I simply don't know where it would make more sense to have the article at Crab or at Crabs. Just to point out, we have Squirrel talk about a group of rodents, including marmots. EnWP has squirrel redirected to "Red Squirrel" (And the group probably at "Squirrels")

I have full trust that after a careful assessment, you will come up with a system of a few redirects that can satisfy our needs. --Eptalon (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your great and tireless work on science/biology related articles on simplewiki. Your contributions here are very appreciated. Thanks! Barras (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Scaphopoda

Hello,Macdonald-ross,

I have created the page Scaphopoda, which contains some basic info on these molluscs. I faintly remember collecting some of them on a beach, but given the descriptions of their habitat I found what I collected was possibly a kind of bi-valve. Anyway, would be great if you could have a look. I don't know how prominent or important these animals are. --Eptalon (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The scaphopods are a class of molluscs, taxonomically equivalent to bivalves and gastropods, though much smaller in number of species. We should eventually have all classes in the animal and plant kingdoms covered, though at the moment many of the minor phyla are undescribed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Ediacaran

The page you wrote, Ediacaran, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was copied from another Wikipedia. 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. Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 14:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Palaeolithic

Hi there, I hope you're having a happy New Year. :) Just a note to let you know that when you need to move a page, please don't copy the text to the new target, but instead click the move tab at the top of the page. This why, the attribution history follows the page. Kind regards, ···Katerenka (討論) 11:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good article nominations

Hello, I only had a quick look, but IMO, the candidates stand a chance at becoming good articles; We definitely need more science-related good articles.. --Eptalon (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello Macdonald-ross. Thank you very much for helping with my article Orthoptera. I'm still a beginner at Simple Wiki and your help & kind remark was felt with gratitude, especially as I perceive that you seem to be very good with both science and editing. Well, thank you anyway, and I hope you have a happy New Year! :)
Classical Esther (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you know I had an idea?

Hello, as you might know, the "Did you know" system is generally looking for interesting facts in articles. Basically, the facts need to be sourced, and the article they are in should not be too complex to read. I was thinking about nominating something about Alternation of generations. Most organisms seem to be diploid (or tri-, tetra-,...), so they need to do something to do something to reduce this to haploid, for reproduction; IIRC this mostly concerns the sex-cells, if any. With certain cnidarians and mosses, for example, this seems to concern whole "organisms", so there are several hooks imaginable:

• A hook about the parents looking/being different from their offspring
• A hook about this or that organism having such a change that involves more than two generations for the full cycle (If that exists)

I recently found out that certain kinds of yeast (which also seem to have this change of generations do have a phase of "sexual reproduction" (which is unusual, last I heard, yeast was a fungus). Anyway, I am probably rambling nonsense, about notions of biology. All I wanted is to set you thinking; since you seem to be more of an expert on this than I am. --Eptalon (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey there! I've just found this. You posted the {{enwp based}}-template on the article itself. This template belongs normally to the talk page of the article. I've done this for the article. It's just a tip how it should be done. Keep up your great article work! Best -Barras ^talk 18:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello, Macdonald-ross! I just wanted to notify you that I commented on the discussion on the article of Lichen, as you were so good to say that you were genuinely interested in my opinion of it, and to thank you for having the trust in me to ask me to review it. It's a very good article indeed! :) Yours sincerely, ···Classical Esther (혜란) 02:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. By the bye, thank you for un-orphaning (?) my article on Bird nests! :) Classical Esther 03:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Second person

Regarding Cat, the last thing I wish to provoke is an edit war over a policy about which I have no strong opinion anyway.  :) I just happened to have read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English pages in the last day when I saw your edit. Shouldn't we try to build consensus in some direction there and then apply it to Cat and wherever else? I don't know what happens if not enough people join the discussion to build consensus. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As a relevant tangent, do you know how usage of simple: breaks down in terms of children versus adult learners of English (or as a terrible crude proxy, perhaps from English-speaking countries versus non)? Without that information, it seems like we're shooting in the dark to try to pitch articles to one audience or another. We probably also need to discuss whether it makes sense to apply one standard to articles on "child-oriented" topics and another to other articles. (I'd suggest that it does make sense, if the audience for the two sorts of articles is radically different.) I'm fine with departing from guidelines where appropriate, but I think this is a great opportunity for an informative global discussion with implications beyond Cat. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken my time on following up to your suggestion to broaden the conversation, mostly because I was dithering about whether it belongs on Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English pages or in Simple talk as you suggested. Since my involvement in SEWP has predictably ebbed again, feel free to move the discussion wherever you think it belongs. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For all your hard work on creating and editing science related articles, I present you with this barnstar. Your work is very much appreciated. Keep up your great work! Megan|talkchanges 20:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Bioluminiscent

The page you wrote, Bioluminiscent, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was all nonsense. 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. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead: the title was a mispelling. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lichen GA

Hello Macdonald-ross! I've closed right now your PGA suggestion Lichen as unsuccessful. There are remaining issues that weren't fixed. Please keep up your work for this wiki and try it again later! Kind regards -Barras ^talk 19:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry.

Hey,

Sorry I accidentally hit the rollback button on the change you made to Ovum. You did nothing wrong, I just failed :P . Sorry!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem! Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Enwp based Template.

Hello. I was just wondering if there was any reason why when you placed the {{enwp based}} template you always placed it as {{tl|enwp based}}. If you compare the pages Talk:Wilhelm Roux and Talk:Pichilemu you can see the difference. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance, I expect. My understanding of WP software is a bit limited. I have done Roux properly now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha It's ok. Thanks for answering!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

minor edits

Hi :) Just curious... is there a reason you're not just ticking the minor edit box instead of having the summary "sm edit"? Is the minor edit box ticked differently on this wikipedia to enwp? Thanks :) SS✞^(Kay) 08:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing profound. I tick the box for something noone could conceivably want to review, such as a new link; sm edit might involve a small change in wording; anything larger gets progressively more completely annotated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! That's a pretty good idea. SS✞^(Kay) 09:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi could you please help me by reading trough the Death of Tina Watson article and then make the edits you think is necessary to improve the article. (if you find any). Some final touches to a good article. Would be appreciated.--Sinbad (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

good job

Hi Macdonald-ross!

Good job on creating chess related articles. May I suggest you join WikiProject Chess? You would be a very helpful member indeed. Of course, you don't need to join if you don't want to. Just a thought. Happy editing, I-on ∞ 18:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Didn't know such a thing existed! Thanks, Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple News Issue 21

GoblinBot3 (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

barnstar!

		The WikiProject Chess Barnstar
		You have really taken off with chess related articles. You are by far the most active in the project and thus would like to thank you by giving you this WikiProject Chess Barnstar. Be proud and keep at it! Happy editing, mccon99 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Chess diagram template

I saw that you suggested the importation of a chess diagram template for illustration of chess concepts. Is this the template you had in mind? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chess_diagram_small Kansan (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that must be the one. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Award

For Macdonald-ross, who has completed more than six months service to the Simple English Wikipedia. He has also completed over 4,000 edits, with an amazing 88% of them being on articles. Well done, you are entitled to the Little Red Book. There are also medals or ribbons if you would prefer them. Peterdownunder (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor is a Journeyman Editor and has the right to show this Wikipedia Little Red Book.

Crazy Horse Saloon

Hello Macdonald-ross,

I read your commentary about the notability/referencing of Crazy Horse (cabaret). The very problem we have is that references about these kinds of establishments are "hard to find", and that the other wikipedias don't have many either. The other such establishment which was mentioned in some literature (I think by Guy de Maupassant, but I am not sure) is the "Folies Bergère". It was opened in the 1870s and is a musical theatre / dance hall today. It used to have shows in the spirit of the Crazy Horse until the late 1920s.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I replied on the talk page of that article. --Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of chess terms

Great work, but watch out for simplicity Purplebackpack89 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For Macdonald-ross, who edits without seeking appreciation, but with every right to deserve it, in Wikipedia mainspace (especially in science articles) with a capability and diligence that often amazes me. Thank you for your invaluable contributions and please keep up the wonderful work you do! :) Sincerely, —Classical Esthertalk 03:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I second the sentiment. :) About low page views, I was thinking: Do you think putting Simple English just under English in the transwiki links would help? I think as it stands we're too far down for anyone to realise we exist, grouping with English would make more sense. What do you think? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea; it's bound to help. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Macdonald-ross, Belinda has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi, Macdonald. I was just dropping in to tell you thanks for working on the Chess articles so much. You're a great help to our wikiproject. :) Since you've already recieved a chess barnstar, I suppose all I have to give you is this sweet smile. God bless and happy changing, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hey there Macdonald-ross! Just letting you know that I have just closed your PGA "Chess" as 'promoted' - congratulations! I look forward to seeing more nominations & rticles from you in the future! Regards, Goblin 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!

Barnstar! (I'm a bit late)

		The Changer's Barnstar
		For your big help with promoting chess to GA. I recall from your nom saying "I-on and myself are main contributors." You gave me too much credit! :) You did most (if not all) the work and I thank you for helping me out so much. :) I hope you enjoy this barnstar with great pride. All the best, Ι-ση // ταlκ ραgeψ 14:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

L'Atalante basin

Hello Macdonald-Ross,

as I saw you "imported" the article L'Atalante basin earlier today. When you have the time, could you spend a few minute simplifying it, and adapting it to our manual of style, please? - While the article is short, it looks quite complex, even to a person who does not have trouble with the English language. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You have really done an impressive job at simplifying :) --Eptalon (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The DYK Medal
		For all your recent help at reviewing DYK hooks with a clear voice of reason, an often tedious and thankless task! Thank you very much and please keep up your great work. :) Warmly, —Clementina talk 08:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple News Issue 24

GoblinBot3 (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Protocarnivorous plant

Hello there, I have just read the English article, and if I read it correctly:

1. People do not (or can not agree) on what is a carivore (in terms of plants)
2. There may be plants (we know), and where we do not know they are carnivores
3. Basic problem: Is a plant that relies on a bacterium for digestion a carnivore, or are they simply living in symbiosis?
4. The detrivore mentioned in the loss of carnivory section there is definitely interesting.

I odn't have the knolwedge, but it looks like if the English article is properly transferred, it might offer quite a few DYK hooks... --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Algae can grow on snow..

DYK algae grow on snow? :) --Eptalon (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominated something from that article for DYK. :) --Eptalon (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sparrow

Can you have a look at the pages on Sparrows and House Sparrow for me? Are these the same bird with two articles? --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless work on science related articles and all the great article work you do. Keep up the great work! Barras (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi (mathematical constant)

"Pi is not an exact number." I'd like to dispute that. We can't find it's exact value, we can only approximate it. Those approximations aren't pi, in it's strictest definition. But I believe that we know for certain it has an exact, albeit unattainable value. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That opinion does not correspond with the views of expert mathematicians. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would these refs say otherwise? (It means please verify them)

1. http://www.jainmathemagics.com/page/10/default.asp
2. http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58288.html
3. http://www.uz.ac.zw/science/maths/zimaths/pi.htm
4. http://www.ehow.com/how_5157582_calculate-pi.html

Thanks, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The second and third references are useful. I can't reply more at present; I'm away from home and my reference books. Talk about this more next week! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

New user

Hi. I am a new user. I want to complete an article. Did you have a template for translation? Nataly8 (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied, advising Wikipedia:Simple talk. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For you work and changes!!! Nataly8 (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will need it. Nataly8 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In your last new article, I think, you can put the references and the other sites from English Wikipedia. Thanks. Nataly8 (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I do that sometimes. However, I don't copy everything enWP does; I do what I think is best for this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Nataly8 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good morning. I left a question on simple talk about the link GA. Did you know how it must works? Nataly8 (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pilgrim's Progress

Hi Macdonald-ross, and thanks for your high quality work around the wiki! :) I have a question, though: I see you moved The Pilgrim's Progress to Pilgrim's Progress today, and I was wondering whether the former might be better. Isn't The Pilgrim's Progress the original title? Even if it's less common, if it's more correct, I think it should be the article's name, and we can make Pilgrim's Progress a redirect. :) I think that's the traditional way - to redirect common names to the official/original one. What do you think? Cordially, —Clementina talk 08:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard it called "The Pilgrim's Progress", only the shortened title. sonia♫ 08:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The English article, Wikisource, and the copy I have at home (the one I never quite got through reading) all list it as "The Pilgrim's Progress". :) Best, —Clementina talk 09:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you see we cannot use the original title and must shorten it. It is only a question of what to shorten it to. People don't actually say 'The Pilgrim's Progress' in modern English, they say 'Pilgrim's Progress'. Anyway, the only reason I'm doing this is that I'm going to suggest it for GA as it's so very much better than some others which have been suggested. I need to do a bit of work on the English first. When this comes up on the GA page everyone will jump on it, and you may be in the majority about the name. [written at same time as Sonia's] Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Airplaneman. Nice to meet you :). Just saw you through Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles#The_Lightning_Thief. What evidence do you have that in modern English, people say "Pilgrim's Progress"? Also, I am pretty sure you are alluding to the PGA of The Lightning Thief when you say The Pilgrim's Progress is "so very much better". Yea, so… how can we make The Lightning Thief match the stellar quality of the Pilgrim's Progress article? I've and another editor have asked at the review as well. I'm aware you have pointed out spots that you think are weak. We just don't know how to go about fixing them. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It would be helpful if you put some useful information about yourself on your talkpage. Many people put: what their native language is, plus any others they speak. Second, they often put which country they live in. Some put in their age or their school level. None of this is required, but all of it is helpful to others when they reply to you.
You ask about Lightning Thief. Now, I'm not going to review it in detail, because my time is limited, and what I do is mostly to put up new pages on science topics. I have already indicated some points. If anyone wants to get really detailed advice, one place to go is user:The Rambling Man's talk page.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My congratulations. You did very good work. Hey, I put 5 articles in peer review. Good luck :) Nataly8 (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I don't do TV/games/pop stuff. IMHO popular culture is over-represented on WP. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User country British

Is this what you are looking for?

en-uk-N

This user is a native speaker of British English.

Cheers,--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I've already solved it: see my user page. The point I was making is that there is no standard template for users to say they are British! Macdonald-ross (talk)

Pilgrim's Progress

I started reading the article but I find Only ministers of the Church of England were allowed to preach. He spent twelve years in Bedford jail. He might have been freed if he had promised not to preach, but that he refused. Do you have some sources for it? Nataly8 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the source is John Bunyan - "His Life, Times and Work" - Dr John Brown 1885, though I don't have access to it. Please remember I didn't write this article! I offer the following from WP biography of Bunyan:

"After just one month, he was visited by the magistrates clerk, who sought to persuade John to give a promise to cease preaching at 'private gatherings'. He told John that what the magistrates were concerned about was not the fact that John was not a licensed preacher but that he was preaching at conventicles. These were private gatherings around England which (or so the authorities suspected) were being used as a cover for meetings where plots were being made to overthrow the King. The clerk told John that, if he would promise not to preach at these private gatherings, he would be set free. John argued that he had a higher obligation than to the king, that he had an obligation to God, to preach His word wherever and whenever he could. John argued that, if he promised not to preach in private places, this would prevent him - for example - from preaching to his neighbour in the privacy of his home and thus John would be failing in his obligation to God. And so John was left in goal to consider his situation. And there he remained, mostly, for the next 12 years!. In that same year John published “Profitable meditations”. 1661 The Gaoler let John out of goal for while, to go preaching 1662 John published “Praying in the Spirit” 1663 John published “Christian behaviour”on 17th April 1664 John published “Serious meditations” & “Ebal & Gerizm”, 1665 John published “The Holy City”, “Resurrection of the dead” & “Prison meditations” 1666 John published “Grace abounding” and has a few weeks release from goal 1667 John's second daughter Sarah was born 1668-72 Jailors sometimes let John have his liberty. He publishes “Confession of faith” & “A defense of the doctrine of justification by faith” 1672 Under King Charles' Declaration of Indulgance John is released from prison and 9th May was licensed as a teacher."

However, it would not be right to go into details in the article about Pilgrim's Progress. The text sentence seems in order. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. You did good work to make it GA! Nataly8 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Congratulations
		With the best wishes for the future! Nataly8 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone left a message in the page of proposed GA. Nataly8 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for both. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Simplification

Nothing. You deserve it. I am working with red links. Did Aang needs simplification? Nataly8 (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Inorganic chemistry

I will try to create it in the next day or two. It may be complex though; feel free to tell me if you think it is. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Congratulations
		For your good and hard work. With the best wishes for the future! Nataly8 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that's enough awards for the time being. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Simple, what it is...

1. I normally use the IUPAC recommendations for chemicals; so I would use caesium (not cesium) and sulfur (not sulphur).
2. I try to link base to base (chemistry). Occasionally I forget.
3. I do not add interwiki links; let the bots do it.
4. Sometimes I insert a comment before the "original" first mention, making the second mention linked.
5. I do not normally add references to any articles because enWP articles don't have references. Also, they are just basic facts. Finally, I do not have many references other than enWP.

OK, I'll have your talk page watchlisted so you can reply here. Thank you. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles

Hi there! I just patrolled the article creations and saw Albert Bridge. You used an other than enwiki uses. The problem with other names is that the interwiki bots don't catch it and add interwikis when the names are different. If you created pages with different name to enwiki, it would really be good to the interwiki (Or just make the page names as enwiki ;) ). BTW, I try not to touch, well to move, the pages as I know now that you may have a reason. Although I think that this page should be renamed and Albert Bridge itself should be a disambiguation. Best, -Barras (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TOTW

Hello there, just wanted to tell you that the current ŧranslation of the week is about biology/behaviour. :) --Eptalon (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Canterbury earthquake

Your assistance in getting the article up to standard would be much appreciated, if you're interested. sonia♫ 07:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of Standing stone

Hi there! Thanks for helping out better categorize Standing stone. Since you added Category:Prehistoric buildings and structures I went ahead and removed Category:Archaeology and Category:Ancient history which are both parent categories, and are not needed if there is a more specific subcategory present. Hope you don't mind. - EdoDodo ^talk 09:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mexican War

More important that WWII, WWI, Vietnam or the American Revolution? You've got to be kidding! Purplebackpack89 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC) A little table to illustrate my point: {{infobox wikitable !War !Mexican !WWI !WWII |- |Years||2||1||4 |- |Men in arms||78,700 ||4,000,000 || 10,000,000+ |- |Casualties||13,283 ||205,690 || 1,076,245 |- |Total War?||No || Yes || Yes |- |Conscription||No || Yes || Yes |- |Long Term Effects||*Territorial gain
(but California was leaving Mexico anyway)

• Border issues||*U.S. a world power
• World War II ||*End of Great Depression
• Military industrial complex
• Cold War
• Rise of American middle class

The Mexican-American War may seem important now due to the border issue, but WWII and WWI clearly had both more impact at the time and more long-term impact.

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For Macdonald-ross who often picks up important small details and looks at them from a realistic and practical viewpoint. I particularly enjoyed his story about measuring the speed of a cheetah. The Simple English Wikipedia is better and more accurate with his careful editing. Peterdownunder (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Good job I don't have to wear these awards, or I'd look like a South American dictator giving a speeech from a balcony! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, but you deserve them all. :) I second Peterdownunder's comment, and please keep up the good work! —Clementina talk 06:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Another barnstar!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For Macdonald-ross for his work as part of the "Did You Know" team. This small group of editors make suggestions, check the facts, offer improvements, and make sure there are always new DYK hooks to go onto the main page. Keep up the good work. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

enWP article progress

Perhaps you're not aware but I've pushed around 40-odd articles, lists and two topics to featured status in enWP and on not one single occasion did I do it incrementally through Stub, Start, C, B, Good, A, FA class. I ordinarily went from Stub/Start/C to featured in one step. It's just a case of doing the work. Telling people here on Simple that it's done any other way on enWP is pure fiction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for your help here; just wanted to let you know i have added you to the "rollbackers" group. This will help you "undoing edits". Just wanted to let you know. :) --Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bouquet

Belinda has given you some beautiful, lovely roses! Enjoy the scent!

Sorry, Macdonald, I really don't want to make you a South American dictator wearing heavy gold badges, ;) but I couldn't resist at least presenting a sweet-smelling bouquet of fresh roses, just picked from the garden by me. I noticed you're working up articles about comets and astronomy; both seem interesting, although I (as usual) am clueless about those things. Well, your hard work is very valuable to our community, and I'm obliged to all the active editing you do these days. I'll try my best to help you in your work, although the few articles I made seem so clumsy compared to the ones you made... Anyway, God bless you, dear, and remember that there is always a certain person who cares very much of your wellbeing and is always thinking of you... at least, almost, always! :P With the most heartfelt love, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 12:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your charming note. I'm sure South American dictators don't wear roses! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dromaeosauridae

Hello Macdonald-ross, as you know I cannot assess the importance of an article that looks to be about one of the groups of dinosaurs, as featured in a Steven Spielberg movie. The page as it is now, is about 50k in size, or about the size of our Evolution article (VGA). I do not know if it is more work simplifying the copy, or starting from scratch. Given our audience, would an article about one fifth of this size also do? - very probably. If you think a deletion would be necessary, nominate the article for a regular deletion process (I woudn't feel right quick-deleting it). I have added the attribution, and removed the good article tag. I will add the complex tag later.--Eptalon (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Organizational Debate at History of the United States

Hey, there's an organizational debate going on at Talk:History of the United States regarding sectioning of Post-World War II content. Since you have contributed to the article, you might want to take a look at it Purplebackpack89 04:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary suicide

Hello. I have created the article Evolutionary suicide, which should explain the concept (with an example, and references). There are currently two red links in the article, and I do not know what the best would be. Could you take a quick look and advise? Thanks --Eptalon (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it a mistake to bring over this poor article to Simple. Evolution and suicide have nothing at all to do with each other. Suicide is a purposive human action, and evolution is not purposive at all. Together they are meaningless. The article admits no examples are known: why have the article at all? I am concerned that naive readers might think this is proper evolutionary theory. It is not.

There is no doubt that, as adaptation fits a population to its habitat, that population is at risk of habitat changes. That is just life, not suicide. The original article on enWP was put up by a weak contributor who is not active on the main evolution pages. It should have been ruled out as not notable. Since when do non-existent things count as science?

The articles has refs: that may save it. But the similarity of this idea to orthogenesis (for which see enWP) is very uncomfortable. And it is (if intended as a serious idea) a micro-micro-minority of biologists who would see the term as needed in evolutionary theory.

As to red links. "Evolutionary pressure" is just natural selection: bigger fish are selectively caught by man and removed from the population. "Group selection" is another concept whose reality is under dispute, though it does have a much better pedigree than so-called evolutionary suicide. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you therefore suggest we go thorugh an RFD for the article? - References to publications like Nature look serious though (which may also be a misconception/fallacy) - Should I try and spend some time analysing the references? --Eptalon (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea of putting several of these disputed ideas into one article under some title like 'disputed evolutionary ideas'. This would serve to 1. Give them some place on the wiki, and 2. Make it crystal clear they can't be claimed as main-stream thinking. Evol. suicide would then be moved onto the new page as a section. So don't do anything at the moment; I'll get onto it after I've done a few more Roman Emperors (!) Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A little concern

Hello, dear Mr. South African dictator ;), and thanks so much for your edit to Bald Eagle here. However, through Apple Safari, the Internet server I am currently using, the words and pictures lapse together and looks weird (also making it a little hard to read). If you won't object, do you think we could use a different way to adjust it - if I don't undo the edit, that is? Your humble maidservant, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 12:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean the map in the infobox? The reason for the edit was that the map at 300px was causing the infobox to appear too large in relation to the text. Graphics need to be arranged so that the text flow is easy to follow. Details of the map are not meant to be read at thumb-size, but clicked to get the larger image. The infobox is expanded automatically to suit the widest component, whether text or graphic. So, as one tidies up the lay-out, it's one of the things to check. You may also need to switch the 'Bald Eagle flying' from left to right: that is also interfering with text at some page widths.

However, this is your baby, so you go ahead and make the decisions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I guess you're right. And no, it's not "my baby" :P, but I will undo it, because I prefer the last revision - but thank you so much for your suggestions. Cheerfully, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 09:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Indians comment

Mac, what you're saying about the Indians is not true. Sure, the Trail of Tears and the Dawes Act were in the 19th century (Trail of Tears is mentioned in 1815-1861), but the reason Native Americans were so vulnerable was that they had been decimated by smallpox in the 17th and 18th centuries. If it had not been for that, the Indians could have easily defeated the settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth. In addition, the bloodiest Indian massacres were not in the 19th century, but in the Colonial era. Take King Philip's War. In that one conflict, 15% of the Native Americans in New England were killed. Please read portions of something like Guns, Germs and Steel for more on that. And in regard to your "ridiculous length" a GA has to be comprehensive, which in this case means long Purplebackpack89 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Japanese American internment

Thank you very much for your work/review on Japanese American internment, which has been promoted to Good Article status. Kansan (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

List of chemistry topics

Oh no! I'm not ready to add 500 links. Maybe adding Category:Chemical compounds would be better. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Expanded a little. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Already it looks better! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple News: Issue 25

Grunny (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Post Impressionists

I have just come across your changes to that article, after not being at Simple Wiki for a while. I want to discuss the changes that you made, with an aim to reverting the article more to the way it was, but incoporating some of them

This is your re-written intro.

Post-impressionism is the term coined by the British artist and art critic Roger Fry in 1910 to describe the development of French art since Manet. Fry used the term when he organized the 1910 exhibition Manet and Post-Impressionism.

You have given the background of the word, but:

• The reader is none the wiser, because it's all related to "the development of French art since Manet". You are presuming too much knowledge in your reader.
• "Coining" is not a simple word, even though it is a short one. When the etymology is described, you need to write "the term was first used by...."

Post-impressionists extended impressionism but went beyond its limitations. They continued using vivid colours, thick application of paint, distinctive brush strokes, and real-life subject matter. However, they often emphasized geometric forms, distorted form for expression, and used unnatural or arbitrary colour.

• The names of art movements have capital letters. Impressionism, Cubism, Fauvism, Romanticism get caps.
• "extended Impressionism"? "went beyond its limitations", "application"< "distinctive" and "arbitrary" for goodness sake! This is supposed to be simple English!

• The reason why the article was written under the headings of "Post-Impressionists" and not "Post-Impressionism" is that there is simply no notion of an ..."ism" with the work of these artists. They were never a group, although there was some interaction between them. They were a collection of individuals. They all went different ways and inspired different trends. They were the grandfathers (rather than the fathers) of Cubism, Fauvism, Expressionism, Avant Garde and so on.
• Fry could not have used to term to describe the "development" of French art since Manet, but rather the various "developments" plural.

• OK! At this point I went to the Wikipedia page and noticed that you had simply liftd the intro from there. Well the introduction on Wikipedia is inadequate as well. I will rewrite it when I have time.

Since all you did was cutn'paste, I really oughtn't need to go through it word by word, but just simply point out that writing Simple English for Children and non-native speakers takes a lot of thought. Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you improve pages on art and artists. However, I have my own way of editing, and I prefer to recycle later again and again, making changes and simplifications. You didn't give me much chance to do this, since my last session on the page was only six days ago. Art history language is especially difficult to simplify, and any help is welcome. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You should know

Was this sentence correct? See my reasoning in the edit summary. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A rook is never called a 'castle' by people who regularly play chess. Obviously it's possible to call it a castle, but players don't once they are in the chess culture. All activities have their own terms. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I refactored my comment to be more accurate. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bacteria?

Hello, in a Press Conference,at 19.00 UTC today, Nasa will likely announce they found bacteria which are based on arsenic, rather than carbon; see this article at the BBC. Do you think it is feasible to create an article on these bacteria for our readers, or do you think that's porbably too much hassle? - The link to the NASA press release is here --Eptalon (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I'll do a page tomorrow. Macdonald-ross (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Move of Late Triassic to Upper Triassic

I noticed the move you made, which you mentioned is more geologically correct. I did notice that English Wikipedia still has it as Late Triassic. With that in mind, might it be better to leave it as "Late" in articles such as those referring to dinosaurs? Our target audience is unlikely to know what "Upper Triassic" means, but "Late Triassic" or Jurassic would make sense to them. Kansan (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. When learning or teaching geology, students get to look at some rocks. Once a person has actually seen some strata, they understand instantly what words like 'upper' and 'lower' mean.
2. I've written about thirty pages on geological periods alone, and I'd have to change wording in many of them, and in a hundred other pages. Lower Triassic was one of just a few put up by others. It would be different if someone else had done all the work, as they did at enWP. But here, I did most of the work!
3. True, enWP has Early & Late, but they also have Upper & Lower, not just as redirects. They use Early & Late for time periods, and Upper & Lower for pages on the strata. They often use half-a-dozen pages for what we put into one page, and include incredible detail on the rock strata. We deal with the time periods and the strata on one page, and do not go further than epochs (the sub-periods. So really we can make our own choices. Many of my pages on geological periods did not come from enWP, but from printed souces, or they are amalgams of several enWP pages.
4. I can offer to review the material on the central geology pages, to make sure beginners are catered for. So far as Upper vs Late is concerned, I think it is better to change a handful of short new pages rather than dozens of well-established pages.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of Conservatives in the United States

Hi,

I just wanted to be fair and direct and let you know I made a bold change to Conservatives in the United States. I explained the change on the Peer Review page. Since you had commented on the review, I wanted to tell you so that you could respond if you wanted to. I'll inform others who commented also. Thanks! Gotanda (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

I guess you have already seen it in the recent changes, but I just wanted to tell you that I started the article on the Muslim Brotherhood. I guess that overall, the article will not be easy to write, and if we want to get an accurate description, we will probably need many references. Note also, that the links of the Brotherhood to terrorism are a matter of dispute. If I look at the German language article, Brotherhood candidates seem to make up the largest "opposition" in Egypt. In recent times, they even tried to change the Egyptian system so that it becomes more democratic. Anyway, this is just a short message so we don't do work twice... --Eptalon (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Keres

Sorry, but there is no any reason to put russian transcription to article about Estonians and please remember that in Estonian there don't use paternal names at all. And illegal occupation don't change nationality of any person. -- Ahsoous (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please revert it back. -- Ahsoous (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the article as a result of edit warring. Please discuss the issues on the talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Hello Macdonald-ross. I have moved the page as requested, but for now left a redirect from erosion to soil erosion. Look at my talk page for more background, should you require it. --Eptalon (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Halophiles

Hello Macdonald-ross, I have had a look at the Halophile page, which is up for PGA. I have made two changes which looked like a good idea, also adding an image of a salt-evaportion site, with different colors. The reason I leave this note is different though: Do you think it would be difficult to extend the bottom two sections a little, to match the first in size? --Eptalon (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Calvin cycle

If you could, take a look at Calvin cycle. I know I over-simplified the steps, and I'd be appreciative if you could fix any inaccuracies. Albacore (talk · changes) 20:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your simplification was good; the page needed more context, so that's what I added. Note the correct spelling of RuBisCO as in enWP. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Just in case you didn't know, when you post messages on talkpages and Wikipedia pages, such as you did in "Talk:Cynodont", you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your message. You can also click on the signature button or which is above the change window. This will put a signature containing your user name or IP address and the time you posted the message. This information is useful because other users will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who drive bots are responsible for their use. Your bot does not seem quite right for this wiki, and you are not adequately supervising it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)