User talk:Rus793/Archive 2

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Rus793 in topic Elizabeth Connell

Quick deletion of Pike (weapon)


The page you wrote, Pike (weapon), has been selected for quick deletion. 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. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After short break the article was improved. Rus793 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou

Hello, and thanks for this new article. I noticed that your edit summary says that the article is based on the English Wikipedia article. When you base an article on an article from another Wikipedia, you need to give the exact version of that article that was used. Please add something to the article's talk page to indicate the exact version. You can find more information about this at WP:Transwiki attribution. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I give an exact version? The version in the URL is the current version. But I don't understand what you mean by "give the exact version". Are you talking about the version number shown in the examples on the policy page? Because that's the only mention of anything even similar to an exact version on that page. I experimented by adding the template to the talk page, No indication whatsoever of what version it is or anything showing a version number. Then I experimented by adding the template to the edit comment. All I got was "(citation)". It didn't even show the page I added to the template. This might be really simple, but I don't understand based on this policy page or this explanation. The page now has three attributions to it and I still don't know what the version number is or if any are reflecting the "exact version". How does an editor know if he or she is in compliance or not? I'd really like to know. Rus793 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. This isn't really about citations, it's about attribution. Citations are about documenting where information in an article came from. Attribution is about giving credit to whoever did the work of creating the article -- it's related to copyright issues. WP:Transwiki attribution has info on it, but I'll try to explain as well. Every time an article gets changed, its version number changes. The way the {{based on}} template is currently coded on the talk page, it will always link to whatever is the latest version at the time someone happens to look at the talk page. If the enwiki article has changed since you created the article here, that will no longer be the version you used. We need the version you used as a basis for the article here. To give that information, you need to add a version parameter to the {{based on}} template. Template {{based on}} has instructions for finding the version number, but I'm not sure how clear they are, so I'll try to give them here:
  1. Go here to the history page of the enwiki article.
  2. Find the date and time of the version you used as a basis for the article here, and click on it.
  3. The URL will have a number at the end that looks like this: oldid=123456789. Copy the number or make a note of it.
  4. Edit Talk:Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou and add a version= parameter to the {{based on}} template. The result will look something like this:
    {{based on|Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou|version=123456789}}
  5. Save the page
Believe me, I know this is a big pain, but it's a legal requirement. Let me know if you want any more explanation. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I indicated was the experiment I tried curiously returned the word “(citation)”. I didn't mention source citations at all and it should be evident I know what a source citation is. When you said "You can find more information about this at WP:Transwiki attribution"; unfortunately these instructions you just gave me are actually not on that page. They really should be because yours are perfectly clear. A quick fix would be to copy the instructions you just gave me into the attribution policy article. But you're right; the procedure is a big pain. It would be nice to hear someone is working on assigning this to a bot, template, or to provide some automated tool similar to the one administrators have. I don't think it’s so much a problem of ignoring the requirement, I think that many editors simply don't have clear, concise, information on the subject. Some might also be from another wiki where attributions are handled by a hatnote. This seems to be more a problem of making editors aware of the policy here. I appreciate you providing the detailed instructions; it's really all I needed. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, I'm glad I helped. I'm not sure what a bot could do. How would it know which version of an article was used? I will look at adding better instructions to WP:Transwiki attribution and maybe to the doc for the attribution templates. What automated tool do the admins have for this?
One thing that might make this easier is to have an article imported here from enwiki instead of manually copying it. (Is that what you meant by the automated tool?) It can be imported (by an importer) to your userspace to be worked on, then moved (by you, with the move function, not manually) to articlespace when it's ready. When you import an article (or template, or whatever), it brings the edit history with it and that takes care of the attribution. If you ever want to do that, ask someone with the importer right or leave a note at WP:AN. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the same tool mentioned in the WP:Transwiki attribution article. I's called the local import tool. Administrators have rights to use it automatically. As for asking you or someone else to use the tool for me, I sometimes bring over two or three a day (articles, not stubs) and plan to continue for some time. At least working through the numerous dynastic lines of counts of various principalities we don't have here (Anjou, Blois, Flanders, Vermandois, etc.). According to the Wikipedia:Importers I can request the use of the tool from a bureaucrat, but apparently it's only temporary, on a "per project" basis. It sounds like I'd have to be requesting it repeatedly. I might look into it but for now I'll just import manually. Thanks though. Rus793 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Rus793. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, Rus. I don't know whether you know it, but we have the gadget Twinkle available here, which will make your patrolling a lot easier when you have to nominate a page for deletion. You can enable it under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, it's the last one under "Browsing gadgets". When you've enabled it (and cleared your cache), there'll be a new tab at the top of your page that says "rfd" (or something similar). Click on that, type in your arguments and it will take care of all the tedious extra edits that need to be made. Osiris (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the suggestion. I used Twinkle at enWiki, but mostly against vandalism. I'll give it a try, thanks. Rus793 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, it is much easier.Rus793 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dating maintenance tags

Hey, thanks for adding the {{complex}} tag to National Art Museum of Azerbaijan. In case you didn't know, when you specify a date with a tag like that, you need to use the keyword "date=". For example:

{{complex|date=September 2013}}

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article you asked about

M., Here's the enWiki article on Encyclopedic writing you asked me to post here. Let me know if you need anything else. Rus793 (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Which Wiki (out of interest)? And I'll remember that I can ask you for help. Btw, on the deletion thread that IP address is me. Wasn't logged in. Shiningroad (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was (and is) enWiki. IPs happen to all of us from time to time. Going back and forth doing two or more things I sometimes miss I logged out or was bounced out by one thing or another. You can ask for help anytime you like. Rus793 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright violation on the Harry Beck articles you QD'd

Do you have the source of the text in those articles? For future reference, if an article is copied from text in a web site, you can use Template:Copyvio. One of that template's parameters is "url=", which is helpful to the responding administrator. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it was © BBC 2013 for both articles: Harry beck and it's duplicate Henry charles beck. Rus793 (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks. I have deleted the articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion requests

You might want to have a read through WP:SPEEDY. A number of your requests do not have to go to rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I have re-read it. In retrospect then, the new article I flagged today for RfD, David Luiz, should be QD'd. Can you make that change or should I add QD? Rus793 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries I will take care of it. :) Just wanted to save you some time. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Rus793. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 03:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved your cmt

Hi Rus! Just letting you know that I moved your CU request from the header template and onto the requests page here. Osiris (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, thought I was on the requests page. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncle and aunt

Hi Rus. Great work on expanding Uncle into a something useful. Did you have any thoughts on what to do with Aunt? Particularly on the idea of merging Aunt and Uncle together? I don't want to merge Aunt into Extended family unless Uncle were to have gone with it, and your expansion makes that unnecessary. The other option is to expand Aunt independently, which I'm happy to do myself or leave for you if you had your own plans, but I wanted to know what your thoughts were beforehand. Osiris (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for asking. I didn’t have any plans for what to do with Aunt although I'd rather see it expanded than merged. I don't know of a similar traditional role to the avunculus (maternal uncle) to his nephew but, the maternal and paternal aunts also had different names in Latin; matertera for a maternal aunt and amita for a paternal aunt. A source for this, if you want to use it is: Constance Brittain Bouchard, Those of My Blood: Creating Noble Families in Medieval Francia (Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), p. 5. I do recall reading of several instances of a maternal aunt being succeeded as abbess of a monastery by their niece, and the nice by her niece and so on (in Anglo-Saxon England). These might be family traditions or there might be more to it. I do remember there was also some differentiation in marriage customs in early Rome between maternal aunts and paternal aunts. But go ahead with whatever you'd like to do with it. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the help! I'll try to do my best. Osiris (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Rus. Not sure if you've used rollback before, but I thought you might find it useful since I've seen you reverting vandalism quite a bit lately. It's the same as Twinkle really, only it won't prompt you for an edit summary because it is assumed that you will only ever use it in cases of clear vandalism. You can test it out here if you want. It'll undo all successive changes made by a single user, in one click. Use it carefully! Osiris (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will, thank you. Rus793 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theophilus lillie

You had tagged this article as a copyright violation. However, the only text copied was part of a quote in the original book. When you quote something a person said, it has to be the same text: we don't simplify it or anything. It is not a copyright violation to include quotes like thst.

However, I did delete the article because there wasn't much meaning there. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate that, it would have been the reason I used if not for the copyright infringement. My understanding is that it is a copyright violation (even if in quotes) if the original author is not credited. The the author of the work I cited was not credited so that's why I marked it a copyright violation. Rus793 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you were thinking. However, the author of that book was not the original author of the quote. The author of the quote was the person who originally said it: that person was just being quoted in the book. Something a person says can be quoted in many copyrighted works, but the copyright for those works does not apply to the quotes. For example, think of a famous speech -- say, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. That has certainly been quoted in many places, but that doesn't mean all those places have a copyright on the text they quote. Does that make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What About Your Friends

FYI, I declined the qd on this article. The text was copied from the enwiki article, but it was simple enough for here. The reason for the transwiki qd criterion is to make sure complex text isn't copied here. If the enwiki text is simple enough, it's OK to copy it. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had checked it for readability and it had a good score. And I know the reason not to copy & paste is because enWP text tends to be too complex. But the wording of WP:QD states: "Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change." So I thought of this as a test case. I guess this answers my question. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could I get you to be a bit more careful with tagging articles as complex. If you are going based on readability scores (which I am assuming from a comment earlier on this page) then you might want to be careful with that because they are not very accurate and we generally don't use them to determine simplicity. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done

On tagging Child Poverty per QD-A3. Well spotted! Yottie =talk= 15:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When you patrol new pages, could you please make sure they are in appropriate, existing categories? All those new articles from User:1939US seem to have had redlinked categories. In some cases the categories could be created, but in some cases they should be removed or changed. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Instead of tagging articles immediately for QD, why not just take the five minutes to check if they meet our guidelines for notability, and add a reference if you need to? Expanding articles is our main goal here. Seattle (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth Connell

Just wondering: what is your reasoning for changing this article from saying she is English to saying she is Irish? I don't see anything saying she is from Ireland. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, you didn't change the category. If she's from the Republic of Ireland (as opposed to Northern Ireland), then I don't think she'd be called British. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She's not from Ireland, she was born in South Africa to Irish parents. I wrote Irish simply because the sources said she was Irish. As for the categories, I don't know which would be closest to Irish born in South Africa, sorry. I was trying to help by showing examples of wikifying, simplifying, showing notability etc., per the tags. Rus793 (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "Rus793/Archive 2".