User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 31

← Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32 →

Phew!

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

Improving the Mitosis and Meiosis pages

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)

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)

Improving the Sustainable Development Page

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)

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)

onestrike on User:PlanespotterA320

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)

Scops owl

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Hello

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)

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)

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)

Helping with a research project in Simplification

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)

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)

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)

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)

Plant taxonomy

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)

Yes, that seems sensible. Go ahead and make the changes you suggest. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

How you find references

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)

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)

Thank you again. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

History of Interlingua

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)

FYI: Proposed demotion for Jackie O

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)

Volgodonsk

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)

Nothing on the page was enough to justify quick deletion. InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 13:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

RfD nomination of Category:Female scientists

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)

C. E. Taylor

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)

User:CRAZY PANTHERMAN

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)

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)

Hello

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)

Julian

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)

(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)

Question

Can you delete all the articles i created? 40.138.162.44 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Yellowstone visitors graph

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)

(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)

Jonathan Daniel Ross

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)

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)

ohh okay

Then, what should i do about the page that has been deleted? Justarandomamerican Dcraigo (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross What should i do? Dcraigo (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

okay Dcraigo (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@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)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
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)