User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 23

← Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24 →

Larinus planus

Hello. I note you removed some of the content I put on Larinus planus as "too close to enwiki". Can I ask why you felt we can't be close to enwiki but must be different? I wrote that content over on enwiki, so I wasn't copying it blindly. I wrote it, and I was just putting what I wrote in both places. I did try to make it simpler for here. But at the end of the day, I try to write in Simple English over at enwiki as well. If you test the readability stats of the enwiki version, they aren't bad. So I just fixed the sentences that I thought needed help. Of course, your version is a lot simpler, which is very good. But I still wonder about why we can't be close to enwiki? I've done the other way around too (start a page here on simple and then copy what I wrote into enwiki also). What should I do differently in future? Desertborn (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I could not simplify it, I would not have changed it... I have brought over various pages I had written on En wiki, and rewrote all of them here. However, if you really feel a page on En wiki cannot be bettered, there is no rule which says it has to be changed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. Thank you. Desertborn (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Help retrieve the article - Fuad Al-Qrize

Sir Macdonald-ross, How do I restore my articles and arrange them correctly? I have a lot of articles and resources that may provide you with a full note. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuad_Al-Qrize https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q77726735 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuadalqrize (talk • contribs) Fuadalqrize (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fuadalqrize: Go to WP:REFUND to ask for deleted articles to be restored. You will need to present a reason as to why it should be restored. In this case, it was deleted because the article did not explain why it was notable, so you should explain what makes it notable in your request. Hope this helps you get your article back online :) Computer Fizz (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Computer Fizz: I don't have a big background in the retrieval request but I can give you more than one Arabic source that supports my article.Can you help me with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuadalqrize (talk • contribs) Fuadalqrize (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fuadalqrize: If you can show at least a claim of notability, you will most likely be allowed one week of discussion under RfD. Let meknow how your request goes! Computer Fizz (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Computer Fizz: These resources that may help me:

My page is in IMDB An article about me in Wikipedia Egypt Who is Fuad Al-Qrize? Profile | who are they? – Economy Meet Fuad Al-Qrize at the Post Archived 23 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine. An African seminar on “Understanding the Universe” in the presence of Fuad Al-Qrize Fuadalqrize (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I need help. Because I don't master Wikipedia very much. Thanks <3 @Fuadalqrize: Fuadalqrize (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fuadalqrize: Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) after writing them, so we know who said what. I have been having to add that for you which I would prefer you do yourself.

Second, Macdonald's talk page is not the right place to have this dispute. You need to get to the request for undeletion page, which is here. Computer Fizz (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

79.69.147.152

This IP user has some very odd behaviour. Pages are being flipped repeatedly between a redirect and content. Most seem to be with pages connected to Canary Wharf. I noticed that you have been involved with changes on many of these pages, which seem to settle to redirect rather than have content. As examples 10 Upper Bank Street and Asset Management have this history. What is going on? Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is just disruptive behaviour, and have blocked the user. IPs are not allowed to do anything they like. Behaviour should be rational, with reasons given for actions. On this subject (business property in London), we had a period when (probably) estate agents were trying to get advertising for offices which were on offer, but this spree does not seem similar. I think it is just some bored person on the wiki at a time when no admin had been logged in.

On the general issue, we prefer the well-known name such as "Canary Wharf" to any based on roads and numbers. Details of address are made clear in the article. Any building whose name is known to the general public is notable enough to be a page, no matter what firm is occupying it at present. Significant companies may have sites all over the place in buildings none of which are notable. (All of this is obvious!). Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're probably right about some bored person playing with the wiki. And I am glad we don't have to have a page on every building in the world... there are 56 on my street alone (my house is notable for me living there). Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on GAs and VGAs

Hi, over in the discussion Talk:Daniela Hantuchová you added that you might be in favor of a different way of managing GAs and VGAs, but that "nothing can be done about it." Was there a longer discussion somewhere back in the past? Is there really nothing to be done? Because some of our front page articles are not really doing the best to represent how good and useful this site can be. I'd be interested to hear your experience and asking here since it isn't really directly related to that or any single article. But, if you'd rather let it drop, I understand. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an important issue, and I can only make a start on a reply. First of all, there never has been a good discussion, but most regular editors will have noticed some of the problems. We all know that some of the stars are stars in name only, and that many very good articles have no recognition. Amongst the problems are:

1. Editors propose promotion of pages where they themselves are the main, sometimes the sole "authors". That despite the fact that all the content is copied from En wiki. They are ego-tripping, and very resistant and defensive to contrary suggestions.
2. Editors copy far too much from En wiki pages and are almost incapable of thinking and writing for themselves.
3. Many pages which should be proposed are not proposed. I believe this is because of the time debit in the process of criticism but whatever, it devalues the articles' visibility. We have a lot of pretty good pages which could be reviewed for GA or even VGA. As you know, we can't really handle the work this would involve if we went through the present procedure.
4. The criteria mean well, and are essential, but they are also biased towards the explicit. We've had many self-supporting editors say "I've put everything in there and answered every point" yet reading the article leaves one with a 'blah' impression. It should be something of a occasion, even an exciting occasion, to read a good or very good page. Is it?
5. Solutions? There may be none. Not all problems have answers. However, I would suggest editors propose pages they have not written (except for minor edits) for a list which others can look through and give stars as they think best. Or if not stars, then some other symbol of note. We should reward more articles, and go way beyond those that ego-trippers propose for promotion.
6. What are the chances of our redoing our system? Not good at all. Many discussions tend to go back to whatever rules were laid down at the beginning when we knew nothing! That is why some of us have not proposed changes in the system, no matter how needed they were. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Origin of life

I have undone the change in the section "Earliest claimed life on Earth". In the original quotation, Hedges asserted that life could be common in the universe if it arose relatively quickly on Earth. However, I don't think it follows that life could be relatively common in the universe if it arose early on Earth. While I think "early" could be plausibly paraphrased as "quickly" in the above context, the "relatively" modifier should remain as it is. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Undelation page on simple wikipedia

Hello ! How I can request a page restoration that I would like to write on simple wikipedia after a community discussion --Eyatu Ben (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to rewrite this article Rehmat Aziz Chitrali which has been deleted by you in the year 2015. This article has been deleted due to Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion. now I have rewrite this as per wiki guidelines, please help me in this regard--182.188.129.138 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

Hello. I am a little confused as to which article you were referring to with your message on my talk page. I don't think I have took anything from the enwiki without translation. Thanks, IWI (chat) 13:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Philo of Byzantium, luckily a very short article! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I had simplified the article from the enwiki. Is there anything in particular that is too complex? IWI (chat) 14:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ignore me, you are right. Won't happen again. Thanks, IWI (chat) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahlem Fekih

Hello Macdonald-ross. I hope you're okay. I'm a fan of the Tunisian actress Ahlem Fekih. I ask for a rereading of the article that an Admistrator deleted. The article is notable and linked by several reliable sources. thank you so much Doctor tn (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This was deleted after a community discussion, and I am not going to undelete the page. It was deleted after comments like "nothing that would satisfy the significant and in-depth coverage criteria. This seems to be more promotional or a devoted fan". It was not a marginal case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Three races

Regarding the article "Three races" that I created and you deleted: I have been working on the articles en:Mongoloid and en:Negroid. Both articles link to en:Historical race concepts, which has no corresponding article here. Since I think that "Historical race concept" is not "simple" English, I thought of calling the article "Three races". As stated in my edit summary, I copied most of of the text from Race (sociology), you deleted the article remarking "Duplicates info on Race and Races".

My problem now is that there are two different concepts of race: The biological one, which is covered in Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian race on this wiki, and the social one which should be covered by Race (sociology). I'd like e.g. the Mongoloid article to start with something like "Mongoloid was one of the three races ...". Because the two concepts are different, it is not possible to say "Mongoloid is a race (sociology)."

You are of course right that the information is given twice, but I think that the best solution to that problem would be to condense the historical part of race (sociology) - as the article stands now, more than half of the text is about the history of biological race concepts. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

An afterthought: I just saw that the article "Historical definitions of race" is red-linked in the sidebar of "Race (sociology)". I think that's the very article I'd like to create. What do you think ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take time to read the articles here and on En again the weekend, and respond in a few days' time. Meanwhile, you can always edit a draft as a sub-page of your userpage. That's a facility which is much underused. The benefit is that major changes to wiki pages may get sorted out without mops having to make decisions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I have nothing useful to say! Go ahead and see what you can make of 'historical definitions of race'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Just created Historical definitions of race, hoping it will live a bit longer and planning to expand it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Its not quite right, because races are not the same thing as species. What is known from the genetics of human beings is that we are all one species. This basically means that males and females do not need to be of the same race to produce children. Of course, everyone knows this. But think back to before modern times. Then black people in Africa had developed skins which protected themselves against the sun, whose rays cause skin cancer, which is still a major killer in equatorial climates. Whereas in colder Europe there was a need for the skin to capture the sun's light to make vitamin D which we cannot get easily from food. So in colder climes, people with whiter skins have an advantage. Thus according to the climate where they lived, humans evolved somewhat differently. So the races of people are based on something very real: their ability to survive in the climates where they lived. Races are very real, but not necessarily in the sense of who or what we like or don't like. They exist for reasons that we can understand (though I admit most people don't understand!) Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm quite able to understand these things. While I perfectly agree with you regarding skin colour, I don't agree with you regarding the existence of races in the biological sense of the word. And I don't know a single recent and decent source which does. Templeton (source no. 2 at Historical definitions of race) explains very well why different skin colours and other genetic differences are very real, but races are not - two of his examples can be found at en:Negroid#Criticism based on modern genetics. That Templeton is not an outsider, you can see from the AAPA paper (source no. 1 at Historical definitions of race). --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• For the benefit of other readers, our content about race is on two pages: Race (biology) and Race (sociology). Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Persian inscriptions on Indian Monuments

Hello. It took a long time to translate the page. Why was deleted so quickly? Although it is in Wikipedia. This is unfair --Ara.ahmad.na (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The page is indeed in English Wikipedia in almost exactly the same form. For this wiki the language must be simplified, and that means more than just changing a few words. I judged the page to be essentially the same as the En wiki page. You need to simplify the page much more if you want to present it here.

Also, just as important, you have no independent critical assessment of the book. That means the article is a kind of advertisement. We don't want your opinion of the book, we want the opinions of expert scholars who are able to assess its worth. We are not a place to advertise a product (such as a book or anything else). We are a place where readers may look to find out what experts think about the book, film or whatever. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello there Macdonald-ross, I left in 2017 and just started back up again. I'm sorry for all that I did between 2016 and 2017. As I just came back, could you tell me where to start? Thank you very much. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's usually best to write about something one knows about. But many editors put their own opinions into an article, where they should have put a source's opinions. So I don't start a page unless I know what sources I'm going to quote. If you choose to simplify a topic from another wiki, you need to choose one which looks as if it has good sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 16:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback issue

Hi Macdonald-ross, just noticed this. I assume you reverted on purpose, but didn't spot the obvious! I have changed that part back manually. All best, --Yottie ^=talk= 11:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't feel your language to be very "nice" (I'm quoting WP:BOLD). I'm referring to your remarks Basic terms you must understand and just because an editor wants to. Although my contributions have been few so far, they were guided by the desire to improve this Wiki, not according to what I "want", but according to what mainstream science says. I think there should be more active editors at this Wiki, and maybe a more "welcoming" language might help encourage some newcomers. Or would you rather have an article praise racist Carleton S. Coon's landmark book The Races of Europe (those words were part of what I removed at Race (sociology) - and had been there since 2009 !) ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)