User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 24

← Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25 →

Hi!

Thanks for adding to my new and developing page, it's greatly appreciated! TheBlankSlate (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

created page on wrong title, now want moved

I accidentally created a page on the wrong title and now want it moved to the correct title for two reasons: a) to match title on regular English Wikipedia and b) so readers here don't look at the title and think that Oxford invented the comma. You can easily just move the page as it will overwrite the redirect automatically since you are autoconfirmed. Even if your sysop privileges were lost during the time I wrote this section of your talk page, as long as you aren't blocked, your account should still be able to move the page and easily overwrite the redirect while creating a new redirect. 154.5.232.241 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done moved it for you :) IWI (chat) 21:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Big Weekend

I saw that in 2012 you coordinated the World Heritage Site and National Park Big Weekend. I've looked through and I can see many of the newer sites haven't been created, and the list articles are not up to date. I updated List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and List of World Heritage Sites in the United States a couple of weeks back. I think we would benefit from another one of these Big Weekends. What do you think? IWI (chat) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the idea worked well at that time. It gave users from all over a chance to do something patriotic for their country, as opposed to regular editors doing all the pages. Of course, the mechanics of doing it are difficult for some users. And, inevitably, most of the results needed work from regular editors.

Of course we do want the lists to be up-to-date. And perhaps what we need even more is articles for the best known and really significant places. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as they are created, they can be expanded by users. I think we would benefit from another one of these, or a similar one, if you have a better idea. The Big Reference Weekend went well, but only regular users could contribute. IWI (chat) 00:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ImprovedWikiImprovment: Also keep in mind the amount of work the coordinator has to do -- finding and tallying the relevant changes. That might be why few people organize these. You might want to ask Yottie what was involved in that. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Auntof6: You're right, it is a lot of work. If it turned out thet I were the coordinator, I would ask Yottie or somebody else for advice on that. At the moment this is just a general proposal, however. I have no problem with doing such work myself, if nobody else wants to. IWI (chat) 12:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A3 QD

Hi Macdonald-ross, I hope you are well. I noticed you declined two QD requests I have made. Both of them were direct enwiki copies without attribution and thus a copyvio. There was no simplification or conversion. It's unclear how you see that it did not fit the criteria of A3. IWI (chat) 14:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not to speak for him but A3 is about being overly complex. Based on the comment he made on one it appears he didn't think they were. Remember an article can be identical to the one on en.wiki if it is simple. The copyvio aspect wouldn't be A3. And personally I wouldn't delete an article for lacking that, I would just add it. Delete is a last resort. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, although it shouldn't have been left without attribution. Copyvios are the most important deletion criteria, not to be taken lightly. IWI (chat) 20:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the importance of attribution, but that is a separate matter. I did not see those pages as too complex. Therefore they didn't meet the QD criteria IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniella Monet article called complex and deleted

How was this article complex? It should never have been deleted. What was wrong with this article? Angela Kate Maureen 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

An IP user today copied and pasted from the English Wikipedia into the already existing article making it complex. I have restored it without the complex copy and paste. Only (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Hi,

you recently deleted Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem, with the rationale "phrase is not notable". However, it has an article on enwiki, and has been there for over 15 years. Please elaborate, thanks. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) (remember to {{ping}} me) 18:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Your signature leaves almost no room for the answer. The answer is: Yes! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick question on edit summaries

Hi, I'm seeing some editors (i.e) using "#WPWPTR #WPWP" on their summaries. Forgive the ignorance on the abbrev, but what does that mean? — Infogapp1 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've no idea. Perhaps means they had taken material from En wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is a contest going on through commons I think it is about adding pictures to articles and you need to put that in your edit summary I think to indicate you did for them so they can count who added the most. I don't have the link off the top of my head to the contest. -Djsasso (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Oh, that's interesting. I tried to look at the Challenge of the Month and I only saw the ones calling for original works. Do you know of any central board of where cross-wiki notices/announcements/challenges are posted? Or do I need to sign up to some mailing list or something? It would just be interesting to see what are the ongoing initiatives — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it was meta not commons. meta:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos. -Djsasso (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Gotta love challenges. Is there an easy way to find all articles that have no images? Looked through Special Pages just in case such category may have been created in the past, haha. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think I found some resources. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tycho's Supernova

I noticed you created this article, but it already exists at SN 1572. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. IWI (chat) 17:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Been there, done that! (used redirect). Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there a page history issue here? Could the revisions of the new article be added on top of the old one? IWI (chat) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So what: the page had about one sentence in it... Merging could be done, but not by me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Well the page should ideally match enwiki at SN 1572. This would involve either a merge or the old article being deleted under G6. The latter doesn't seem like a good idea, as the revisions go back a while. I may ask at AN later today. IWI (chat) 05:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Big Weekend

Noticed you added BWE on Limes. Should we be using that or BWW? Thank you. — Infogapp1 (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Yes! One of those! I don't mind. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Siddesh

I guess it's not possible to salt this page since they keep making different permutations each time? What about a range IP block? It's been recreated more than 4 times in the past couple of days by possibly exactly the same people. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want a range IP block, then best to contact User:Chenzw. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, I just requested for CU since I just realised there's an account that can be tied to previous ones. Thank you. — Infogapp1 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

possible error on the page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_phyla?

Hello Macdonald-ross,

  I don't want to (have time to) learn how to edit Wikipedia. I sent this comment to Wikipedia and they determined that you had made the change, so I am contacting you to verify the number, and hope that you will correct it (if it is an error).
  I suspect the error but am not certain. On the page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_phyla, in the Sortable Table, under Nematoda, for the Species described column (last column), it currently reads 80,000-1,000,000. That is a huge range with the higher number 12 times the lower. In the few other examples in the table that give a range, the higher number is less than 3 times the lower number. Furthermore, 1,000,000 would rival the Arthropods for number of species. While this is possible – I know there are lots of nematodes – I suspect instead that it is just one too many zeros and the range should be 80,000-100,000. 
  Further support for the idea it might be an error is the textual part of that Wikipedia page. First let me point out that in most cases, the numbers of species in the textual part differs from the numbers of species in the sortable table. Nevertheless, the textual part gives “over 80,000” species of Nematodes. I would expect that if the number could be as high as 1 million species, that amazingly high number would have been mentioned in the textual paragraph.
  If it actually is correct, consider inserting something to that effect in the text part to help a future reader to know that it is correct.
  The fact that I don't know whether the number is correct is a convenient excuse for me not to make the change myself. However, I also lack the time/gumption to learn how to correct Wikipedia myself (sorry). I hope you will be able to do it.
  Thank you and best wishes, -Tim Pearce (pearcet@carnegiemnh.org)-

• Well, it's worth remembering that out title says "Simple", and our readership is meant to include children, foreign language readers and so on. But actually, YES, I do have a source:

"The phylum Nematoda is one of the great success stories of the animal kingdom. More than 15,000 species have been described, of an estimated 1 million living species". The passage goes on to say that many nematodes are parasitic (that's obviously true, and is doubtless the reason that as many as 1m. species are estimated.) Source: Barnes R.S.K. et al 2nd ed. The invertebrates: a new synthesis. p90.

The Simple WP page you refer to was not written for the main English Wikipedia, but for this much smaller wiki. As such it does not aim to be so academic as the main English wiki, and references reflect a certain informality. But behind that informality are some editors who are just as capable and concerned with facts as any others.

NB: I don't have to hand Croll N.A. & Matthews B.G. 1977. Biology of Nematodes. London: Blackie. That might have something to say.

Anyway, thank you for taking the trouble to contact us. Nothing is more annoying than figures unattached to a source! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your changes at Negroid

I can't quite understand your recent changes at Negroid. Although you know that your changes are controversial, you marked them as "minor". You didn't give an edit summary. You left the references, but they don't match the text any more (The references say that there are no distinct races, you say that there are no distinct species). We had that discussion before, you stopped arguing after I gave good recent scientific sources. The AAPA (as far as I know, a respectable body of scientists who normally know what they say) says that The belief in “races” as natural aspects of human biology ... [is] among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past. (see the end of the first referenced source). I think WP should follow modern science and not try to keep alive a damaging belief. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I will reply to this , but at the moment I have to deal with other issues. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

When you do, I'd be happy if you could consider my complaint at #Rollback issue. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I too share the concern above. If you weren't a longstanding editor here, I might have been inclined to revert this. Your change goes against what the sources say. Also, you shouldn't mark such edits as minor, although I'm sure it was a mistake caused by habit. IWI (chat) 19:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for taking part in the Big World Heritage Weekend 2020! Collectively, we made 376 changes and created 56 new articles about World Heritage Sites! Whether big or small, every change you made helps make the Simple English Wikipedia a better source of information. Well done. Yottie =talk= 12:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to the Big World Heritage Weekend Macdonald-ross! We have made great improvements to this area as a result. :) IWI (chat) 17:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Biting the newcomers

Hi Macdonald-ross. I saw you left a message on a new user's talk page. Messages written that way can drive new users away, so please try to be a little nicer to them. They are new and do not yet understand our policies and guidlines, but they will learn slowly. :) Thanks, --IWI (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• They've been going non-stop for the last four days, and past experience shows that such editors continue in the same vein. It just leaves us with dozens of pages which do not meet our basic need for a page to be a version of the En wiki page in simplified language. If past experience is any guide, many will never be re-edited. In fact, if we were willing to put up with this, we could write a script to do it automatically. The issue resolves into whether we have properly simplified pages, or more pages many of which are not simplified, merely shorter. Being shorter is not by itself a correct interpretation of our aims. Which is why we spent time some years ago in looking at the idea of Basic English (though that in the end was only a partial solution). I might add that many of our regular reviewers do not adequately simplify language as they come across it. It may be that the objectives behind the creation of this wiki were not realistic, but that could be said (has been said!) about WP in general... Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  They have had several warnings, so if they continue, we can block them per COI. In this case, I will go through this user's pages and sort them out. Let's see if they can learn from the messages left to them. The attribution message I left seemed to work. --IWI (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)