User talk:Rus793/Archive 3

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Auntof6 in topic Patrolling

Quick Deletion of Six Flags

Hi Rus793, I just want to talk about the quick deletion of Six Flags. I created this page because there were two articles in the Simple English Wikipedia that talk about two amusement parks that are owned by Six Flags, Six Flags Magic Mountain and Six Flags Great Adventure. I want the page to not be deleted because I have plans to simplify the article and add more information. Paul Badillo (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated the page based on it being a copy-paste of an enWiki article. These are usually too complex for Simple English Wikipedia. An administrator reviews the request and makes a decision. In this case a few simplifications were made by Peterdownunder and he removed the tag. So the article is still there. When Mr. Wiki Pro welcomed you on your talk page, he gave you several pages to read that help in creating or moving articles. If after reading these you have any questions, any of us should be able to answer them. When a page is patrolled, it’s looked at as it is. There are two ways to avoid being Quick Deleted for this same reason in the future. One is to copy-paste the article into a sandbox. Since you’re registered, you can have your own sandbox where the article is out of the way and you can simplify it as you have time. See the article Wikipedia:Sandbox (there is a link at the bottom that will automatically create a new sandbox for you). Once the article is written the way you want it, then copy it into the main namespace as a new article. A patroller will check it over, then mark it patrolled. The second method is to tag the page {{under construction}} and edit it in the main namespace. Under construction is requesting a courtesy of no outside edits until you are through. Generally you want to use the under construction tag for a short time, no more than a day or two. I hope this helps. Good luck Rus793 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, Peterdownunder also did the attribution for you on the Talk:Six Flags page. Again, this is explained in the article Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia (linked on your talk page) or Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. Attribution is a legal requirement that allows us to use a page from a sister wikipedia (called transwiki). If you create a page that is similar to (but not copied from) a page on another Wikipedia, no attribution is needed. It gets overlooked on transwikied pages sometimes but it is important. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2014 (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. They didn't specify which 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]
You did help -- I've noticed you helping a lot with new articles! I just thought you might have seen something I didn't. I added Category:South African people to the article, because that's how enwiki classifies her. And thanks for all the work you're doing! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Rus793, thanks for your work on tagging articles and reverting vandalism. Just a note on a recent Qd request. Please do not be too quick, and give the editor a chance to simplify. We should probably encourage the use of the inuse template which would help. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick deletion of Ottawa Public Library

Hello Rus793. I understand that I can not copy / paste articles from other Wikipedias, but maybe I'll change the article.--Gray16 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed it to a tag which has no immediate effect on the article. Once you have simplified the article you can remove the tag. This how-to article should help you with copying articles from other wikis and changing them so they meet SimpleWP guidelines: Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. You may find this one helpful as well: Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. Good luck with your editing. If I can help just ask. Rus793 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review

Hi Rus. Since you participated in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Spider International, you might be interested to know that there's a review of the deletion going on at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You're welcome to comment if you have anything to say. Osiris (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Review

There is an ongoing review process in which you are participating. Kindly review the last two sections regarding reliable sources that were introduced (sections) after your participation in the survey.Tdfdc (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since this is on my watchlist I’m alerted each time there is a change. I have read everything to date. If I have anything to add or comment on that I think would help, I won’t hesitate to do so. Thanks for mentioning it. Rus793 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Rus793. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 09:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Luke Baldwin

The reason why I removed it was the page is sufficiently notable. Because under point 4 of WP:Notability (people) Athletes, he plays at a national level thus is notable. The C of E (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already left a previous message on your talk page. Let's continue there. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Rus793. You have new messages at Talk:7-Eleven.
Message added 00:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntof6 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the specifics on this article. I deleted it as a copyvio. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'll sort it out later I got majorly distracted while I was doing it. That is my younger brother was PISSING me off :/ Lol — This unsigned comment was added by Simplegoose (talk • changes) on 13:14, 15 January 2014‎.

Actually all that's needed here is to change the title to match the text. I just wanted to see what you thought before doing it. Rus793 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cookies for s Great Editor.

  Pending has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!


Hi, Rus. When you look at a new article and add maintenance tags to it, as you did with Kingdoms at War, would you please mark it as patrolled? That would save other people the time and effort of looking at it again. Make sense? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case it was on purpose. This one was a little unusual and I wanted other patrollers to take a look at it too. I almost marked this one QD for advertising but was undecided. I intended to come back and if no one else did anything, mark it patrolled. I'll try to do this less though. Rus793 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2013–14 Cambodian protests

Fantastic job on 2013–14 Cambodian protests, Rus! I know that must have taken a lot of work to fix up... Osiris (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Rus793 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikifying and External Websites of Linear function

Hello, I have changed the "based on" link as of my note that was above. However, I see I didn't do it properly. It should go to the article or history of "Linear function (calculus)"

Secondly, I would like to ask what parts of and in what respect the article needs wikifying? It has an introduction that carefully included both of the major definitions with proper book and online citations, followed by sections in logical order again with proper book and online citations. As many links as I found on simple that applied, I included - even the one where the content did not match up as I said in the talk. The math text is correctly done using latex and the rest using html (there is an html typo). The sentence structure is simple and mathematically correct. The images are all svgs. The layout and images look good on a large computer monitor, on a netbook and on a tablet.

Thirdly, I thought the "Other websites" was supposed to be a list of links. As illustrated by the references, I certainly can put them in cite web format and in fact had removed this format as I saw bare links on other pages and was trying to follow.

Please advise in more detail. Thank-you. Lfahlberg (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. How do I link the english article with the simple article? Thanks.Lfahlberg (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.P.S. I noticed you added Alex's name to the cut-the-knot link. He and I are good friends via MathFuture. Aren't his applets great? As usual, I run on and on.Lfahlberg (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lfahlberg, as you may have noticed a few things are different here at sewiki (Simple English Wikipedia). The attribution template I used is one of a couple of ways to attribute an article to enwiki. The important things are the name of the article it's copied from and the permanent link to that article. The policy is at Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. Your layout of the article was very good. Wikifying means to use wiki markup language, internal links to other sewiki articles and Simple Wiktionary. We generally link any nouns that are not in the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. You had partially wikified the article already, the tag was just to remind editors the article needed more. For example, take the word 'definitions' in the first sentence of your article. We link a word to Simple Wiktionary by using [[:wikt:definitions|definitions]], resulting in definitions. Basically our readership includes younger readers and those new to the English language. So we use simple sentence structure as much as possible. Obviously technical subjects and articles with a lot of terms, names and places won't be as easy to simplify. See: Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages.
Yes, 'Other websites' is usually a list of links. While bare urls are not desirable for source citations, they're also not as good for the 'Other websites' links. Besides they just look better and you don't need to deal with longer urls. We're a smaller community here with fewer administrators and fewer new page patrollers. Things do slip through the cracks so you will find less than ideal pages and examples from time to time. Editors just try to fix these as they can.
We don't usually link Simple English pages to other wikis. The main reason is they're not in Simple English. It's the editors' job to bring these pages over to this wiki and format them for our readers. I don't remember adding Alex's name to the cut-the-knot link, I'm not quite following what that's about. Anyway I hope this answers your questions. Good luck with your articles and welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. If I can help let me know. Rus793 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank-you for your detailed reply. I will probably have more questions, but my underlying question is now answered. We are actually trying to make pages for our readers AND they are younger readers and those new to the English. Oh my yes, I can do that! (I was concerned that wikifying meant I was supposed to be making long paragraphs and cover every single mathematical possibility which is extremely confusing to everyone.) I will first try to improve the 2 articles I put up and then move on.) Quick technical question. I would like to use only the last name plus the FIRST INITIAL of the first name of the first author in "Other websites" (so the reader can get to the link). Is that okay? (yes or no is fine) Thanks again.Lfahlberg (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made some changes to Linear function. I know you are busy, but if you could take a look at it and make any comments that would be much appreciated. Also, I can make a tidbit article (I know it isn't "tidbit", but I cannot remember the English word) for linear mapping with the basic definition and some sources so it is not a red link.Lfahlberg (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used the 'Link containing text' style ([ Linear Function Explorer]). The guideline is Wikipedia:Links to other websites. See the section 'How to link'. As you'll see there is more than one way to do it. Your article Linear functions is looking good. I added one link to the word mathematics. The rest is a matter of helping readers to understand the article without overlinking or linking too many words. So it's a matter of judgment. One thing to keep in mind that's different here is that at enwiki you can link something once per section—here it's once per article.
By 'tidbit' I think you're referring to a 'stub' (a short article). But tidbit describes it pretty well. And yes, that's a very good thing to do with red links. Generally when I create a new article, I try to circle back and create the support articles that I had set up as red links. I write complete articles if I can, otherwise I create stubs. It more or less depends on the number of good sources I can find to base an article on. Go ahead and remove the wikify tag when you're satisfied with the article. Rus793 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for ALL the help (yes, stub was the word :)) Actually had to earn my living today so am rather brain dead and will get at it tomorrow. Again, many thanks. Lfahlberg (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My page

Who are you and why do you want to delete my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1228 (talkcontribs)

I'm Rus793, a new page patroller. If I patrolled a page and recommended a QD (Quick Delete) or an RfD (Request for deletion) the reason is given on the template. New page patrollers review new pages to insure they meet the minimum criteria for acceptance here. If you can identify the specific page, I can explain more about the particular reasons for the action I took. Regardless, it is only a recommendation that is then reviewed by an administrator. The administrator then decides what action to take. There is no prejudice in these actions, they are intended for the benefit of Simple English Wikipedia.
It's always a good sign when a new editor shows pride in their work but, keep in mind, once a page is published it is not longer "your page". It belongs to Simple English Wikipedia. Right above the "Save page" button you clicked is the agreement you made that the new article now belongs to Wikipedia. As a contributing member of our community you may edit and improve any article you originally submitted (assuming it was accepted; most are) or any other. One thing that will help is to familiarize yourself with creating pages at Wikipedia. For starters see: Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. We welcome any articles you want to contribute as long as they meet minimum requirements and are for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. In most cases new editors find a new article rejected for reasons they simply may not have been aware of. Don't let that bother you, it's easily corrected. If you need any help, just ask. You'll find editors and administrators here are typically more than willing to help new editors. In turn, as you gain experience here it's hoped you will help others in turn. Good luck with your articles. Rus793 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attribution on List of Florida state parks

It's better to get the person who created the article to put the correct attribution info out there. After all, no one else can be absolutely sure what version was used in most cases. I had left the author a message asking him/her to take care of that and do some of the other cleanup you did -- that way, he or she learns better about how this Wiki works. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. Unfortunately very few do it and the article was a dead match for the enWiki article. But I can leave it for the original editor (or the one who copied it here). No problem. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maintenance tags

First off just want to say its great to see you checking over articles that are newly created. But I want to ask you to be careful with adding maintenance tags. You added a no sources one to an article I just fixed up when it had 3 sources, you also added a wikify tag when it was mostly well wikified. Especially be careful on articles by new editors because slapping a bunch of tags on an article can scare them away and we want more editors. A more helpful option would be to fix the problem if possible. For example on the article I mentioned earlier you also had a bare references tag on it, which would have been a couple second fix and might help out a new user figure out what they did wrong as opposed to just putting a tag on. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I always try to be very careful. Was the article in question using inline citations, general references or other websites as sources? I'd be very surprised I missed inline sources even incomplete ones with page numbers missing. Also, I was just recently criticized for fixing problems on pages and it was 'suggested' I leave it for the author to do so they can learn. I was told to tag the articles and mark them as patrolled. So I limited the number of articles I improved. I'll go back to fixing more of the problems then, which is what I actually prefer to do. Rus793 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you talking about that car-free movement article? That was in userspace when you changed it. Although I was actively working with the user to help her learn to write better articles, it would have been fine for you to change it if you had checked with the user first. I certainly never meant that you should leave articles for their creators to fix if the articles are in mainspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was one mention. Be that as it may, again, I had no way of knowing you were helping that particular user. And again, I did not know about the software glitch where a user subpage could appear as on the new page list. Seeing it as fairly well screwed up new page I attempted to fix it. I had no intention of editing in her userspace and I assume that being on the new pages list, it was in articlespace. Also, I've tried talking to the user in question before and was aware of another admin trying very hard to work with her. But it was at about that point I removed her talk page from my watchlist. If you were working with her after that, I wouldn't have known about it. You could have simply explained the software glitch and told me you were working with her. I'd have gladly complied and thanked you for the information on the software glitch. But since you didn't, how can you reasonably have expected me to know about either problem? Rus793 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I double-checked. It's the Time of My Life (2011 TV series) article you're referring to. I added the reflist so the sources appeared on the page, clearing the error message. These are the bare urls you said I could have updated. The 'no sources' tag was checked purely by mistake in this instance. Rus793 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that is the article. It's all good, like I said its good to have someone doing the work. Was just some tips. I am surprised someone told you to stop fixing the articles. Tagging is definitely not liked as much as fixing an article. Especially if you look at it from a readers perspective, they would rather see things right than a big box on the top of the page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing the Languages link on a redirect

Hiya, A couple of months ago I rewrote the page on bijection adding the information from the existing page Bijection. I saved this page with the consistent name of Bijective function. (Since the other types are surjection and injection and Injection is the medical term, I went for Surjective function, Injective function.) Today, I did the redirect on the page Bijection to Bijective function. That was no problem.

However, I do not know how to move the language link from Bijection to Bijective function. Can you do this or explain how to do whichever is better for you?

Thanks Lfahlberg (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Offhand I don't know how to move that function but I'll look to see what I can find. Rus793 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I can do that for you. Stand by. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind -- I see it's already done. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hiya, I noticed it was fixed after about 24 hours and assumed one of you fantastic admins did it. As always thanks for your work. Lfahlberg (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brandon Q Richardson

Hey, Rus, when was that Brandon Q Richardson article created and deleted before? I don't find a record of that, and the article does seem simple enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was under Brandon Richardson the last time in the log. See: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Brandon Richardson (actor) and also there were comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard under that name. Rus793 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks! I should have left out the "Q" in my search. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About deletion of Veron (Software)

You deleted my article. Actually i wrote it's features [ what software can do ] , few description & some positive and negative views about the software depend on the reliable sources [editors who examined the software]. So this article was not advertisement and it was totally neutral. Jamesb6545 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I patrol (review) new pages but do not have the power to remove an article. I made a QD request based on what I saw in the article and its sources; as to whether or not they met the policies and guidelines of Simple English Wikipedia. An administrator reviewed the nomination for QD and made a decision, again, based on policies and guidelines. If you think this was an error, you can make a request to have it undeleted. This option was mentioned in the notice you received on your talk page when the page was first nominated for QD. Most editors who submit articles have had one declined now and then. It's a part of the process of learning how to write encyclopedic articles for this Wikipedia. Good luck with your editing. Rus793 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your QD on "Facts about Richard the lionhearte"

Hey, Rus, please don't blank pages when you add QD requests, except for copyright violation issue. That just makes it harder for the admins to check the page, and it's not necessary. I don't think this particular page was an attack page anyway, but it did need to be deleted. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't blank it—at least not intentionally. I thought the template did that. While I've used most reasons for {{QD}} before I hadn't used G10 much (not that I can think of anyway). Thanks for mentioning it. I'll remember that isn't part of the template if the situation ever comes up again. Rus793 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, maybe Twinkle does blank the page for attack pages. If so, I didn't know that: I thought it only did that for copyright issues. If it does, I'm sorry I assumed you had done it yourself. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No such article!

Hey, Rus, I noticed you changed some movie articles to link to Film release. As you can tell by the red link, we have no such article. Even if we did, it would be called "movie release", not "film release". Feel free to create the article, though! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to a future article is not unusual. The article name (matching the same at enWiki) seemed to be both appropriate and one we need at some point. But since you asked I'll go ahead and create it. Rus793 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, sounds good. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about renaming Film release to Movie release myself. The choice came down to a toss-up. The sources I used preferred 'film' and seemed to indicate it was the more formal usage. But in working with students in the past, a third or more who had limited command of English, I'm sure I used the word movie. The problem I see, however, is in changing 'Film festival' to Movie festival'. A quick check showed only two major movie festivals (one in Croatia the other in Japan) out of about a hundred. The rest call themselves film festivals and film festival is the preferred name in reliable sources. If you have no objections, I'll change the link to film festivals and create at least a stub. I was going to come back today and try to reduce the red links a bit more anyway. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ones that call themselves "movie festivals" are still film festivals and vice versa -- that's just terminology. We are to use "movie" here, so I would go with that. Formal usage can mean more complex terms, so we need to consider that as well. You can start the article with something like "A movie festival (or film festival)..." or the reverse. Whichever name you go with, use the term "movie" in the body of the article, and you can make a redirect for the other term. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Film festival' is almost universal and IMO should be preferred ('Cannes Film Festival'). In Brit English the Motion Picture Industry is called the Film Industry, and people talk of going to see a film rather than going to a movie. Hollywood has always used the phrase 'Motion Picture' rather than 'movie'. Yes, Aunt is right that Simple long ago decided to prefer 'movie', but I think that, like all American vs Brit issues, it should be decided on a page-by-page basis. It is important for there to be consistency within a page, though you'll never get me to write about 'Movie festivals'! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complex notice towards Assisted living

Excuse me, what was the reason Assisted living was marked complex? Something wrong? Please tell me. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, it was marked complex because of the number of technical and non-Basic English words used. Besides, no single editor is expected to do everything in an article. I hope you didn't get the impression this was aimed at you. When any of us post an article it becomes the property of the community. The tags are intended for other editors who can address any of the problems. You and I both create articles here. So I think I understand the process fairly well. There are times when caught up in the creative process I forget and write at what is a normal level of writing for me. I catch myself most of the time, but not always. Fortunately, we have a wide variety of editors who have different strengths. We work as a community trying to make articles better. I marked it complex because I honestly thought it could be simplified even more. I'd like to see every article, including those I started, made better. Rus793 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beginning and end of slavery

Are any parts of this worth saving? Is it all unsourced OR/POV? I am going to redirect it soon, I think, just thought I'd check with you first. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just working on it to see if there was anything worth saving, but apparently not. I was just about to nominate it for RfD as OR. A redirect would be just as good and more expedient. BTW, the writing style, layout and use of bare urls as general references matches at least two other usernames—if that's worth anyone checking out. Thanks for asking. Rus793 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! The trouble with RfD is that it moves like glue, and as I often contribute opinions, I can't close or move items. Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no sources notices over movie articles, BLP unsourced notice on dead person articles

Excuse me, I noticed "no sources" notices on the film or movie articles I posted recently. Secondly, the persons' articles articles I posted are dead people: they should be tagged with "no sources" rather than with "BLP unsourced" notices due to deceased status. Angela Maureen (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad you asked and you raise two very good points. First, any article with no sources should be tagged 'no sources' (simply on the basis of not having any). Wikipedia:Citing sources states: " Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed." Certainly you don't want anything you worked hard to write removed for not being sourced. Because it certainly can be. Citing sources is important to the credibility of Wikipedia. I'd be happy to help you with anything you're unfamiliar with in citing reliable sources (for virtually anything) on seWiki.
Your next good question: a tag of 'BLP article has no sources at all' is covered in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Under the section Recently dead or probably dead you'll find: " Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." Now, if you only provide a reliable source for the date of the person's death, it solves two problems. No 'BLP no sources' tag and no 'no sources' tag. Hopefully you'll find adding more sources well within your capabilities and not stop at just one. Anyway, I hope I've answered your questions. Keep the offer in mind. Rus793 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lothar von Trotha

Delete the other first duplicate article, don't delete my hard work! — This unsigned comment was added by Mangohere (talk • changes) on 00:51, 5 June 2014.

I don't delete anything, I just patrolled the page and made a recommendation. Even though you raised a red flag by creating two duplicate pages, we don't allow copy-pasted information from an enWiki articles here without simplifying and giving attribution. Attribution is a legal requirement so we don't violate copyright laws. This is explained in: Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. If you object to your duplicate copy-pasted articles being considered for deletion, click on the {{wait}} link on the Quick delete notice and your reasons will be taken into consideration by the administrator who looks into this. Rus793 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the popularity of family history

For what particular reason was family history changed to family history (medicine)? And what family history is more popular than family history related to health troubles? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family history is synonymous with genealogy. Unless the readers are healthcare oriented, that would be the normal use of the term. There is a mainstream popularity of family history in many countries today. Inadvertently, when you titled it Family history you connected to a userpage who listed a hobby as family history. You just reminded me that I had intended to create a redirect for Family history. Rus793 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi Rus793, you have tagged a source on the Taiwan Province as being unreliable. As I do not speak Chinese I do not know if it is reliable or not. If it is a problem as source because it is simple in Chinese, then I don't think the tag is suitable. I am not sure whether we have a policy on sources in other languages or not. (I will have to look it up tomorrow). I know we try to use English language sources where possible, but sometimes they are not available. I know I have used sources in both Finnish and Rumanian when they were needed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I translated the page into English then read it. While I would prefer they were in English, WP:RS says sources can be in any language. In this case it was a Taiwanese government document. Finding it did not verify the statements, I marked each instance as {{failed verification}} and tagged the page as using unreliable sources. I was trying to use a tag that was closest to the actual problems. However, after giving it some thought, 'unreliable sources' wasn't correct as it has a specific meaning. I removed the tag and replaced it with {{Primary sources}} and {{more sources|date=June 2014}}. Thanks for pointing this out. Rus793 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could not get my "translator" script to work, so I couldn't check it. Primary sources can be OK for some things, especially for politics in regard to dates, titles, positions held etc. But I am pleased to see that you are being thorough, good work.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about patrolling?

Hi, Rus. After you put tags on new articles, could you mark them as patrolled? That would save the rest of us the time and effort of looking at them again. Thanks -- let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do about 99% of the time. The only situations where I don't is when I want to make sure other patrollers see it. Usually I wanted more input. If nothing happens for a day, I mark it patrolled. Rus793 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something else I just noticed. If you tag an article, but all the related cleanup categories don't exist, the article shows up in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. To get them out of that category requires an edit on the page. To avoid that, could you create the needed categories when you tag articles? That would be a big help because you place a lot of tags. Most, but not all, of the cleanup categories are created by putting just {{MonthlyCleanupCat}} on the category page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that a few days ago too, but had no idea what was causing it. Can you give me more to go on here? I'd assume that all the tags placed by Twinkle would have corresponding categories. So is this related to using inline tags (e.g. {{failed verification}}; {{weasel}}, {{better source}}, {{citation broken}}, {{citation needed}} etc.)? A lot of broken links, failed source citations and downright faked source citations come from articles copied from other wikis. The unverified source citations are copied along with the wiki markup. That's why I use the inline tags as well; to alert others to the fact these can't automatically be trusted. But, I haven't worked on categories enough to be able to fix the problems in the categories themselves. If it is the use of inline tags that's causing the problem, please let me know. I can just delete the junk source citations as I find them and explain why in the edit comment. In fact, maybe that's a better solution all around. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not specific to inline tags. It happens with both inline ones (for example, dead links) and others. What it looks like to me is this:
  • When an article is saved, the system checks the dates in whatever tags are in it.
  • If a date is invalid, the article gets added to Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. A date is considered invalid not only if it's not in the right format ("month year"), but if the related cleanup category doesn't exist for the given month and year. In other words, the software seems to assume that the cleanup categories will always exist before the tags are used and that, if they aren't there, it's because the date given isn't valid. (Not a completely valid assumption, of course, because we don't create all possible categories for each month ahead of time.)
  • Creating the needed cleanup category(ies) doesn't take the article out of the invalid date category, at least not right away. That may be due to caching issues.
The articles might come out of that category on their own eventually, but I don't know how long it would take. Most of the ones I cleared (and there were around 80 to 100 of them, I think) were for this month, but 2 or 3 were for past years. I don't think we can reasonably prevent this from happening completely, but if you look for redlinked categories after tagging an article and create the category(ies) before tagging any more articles, it could be greatly reduced. That would help keep the backlog down (this one becomes backlogged when there are ten or more entries in the category).
Does that explain it better? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it does. As for editing or creating categories, I'll figure out something. Eight years (next week) at enWiki and never had to touch categories. Whatever I needed was always there and they made sense to me. We have a different system here. OK, is there a single parent category for these new categories? Rus793 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure there's a single parent category that would help here. A lot of them are somewhere under Category:Wikipedia maintenance, but you have to go down a few levels to get to the ones with dates on them. If it's really daunting to you, you don't have to create the categories. I just asked because you place a lot of tags, which is what makes the issue show up. One way you could take care of it is this: when you see one of the redlinked categories for a specific month, find the corresponding category for a previous month and copy the way that one is set up. Most of them just need the MonthlyCleanupCat thing I mentioned above.
And in case you're thinking of creating all the categories up front, whether or not they're needed, I suppose that's a way to do it. I'm not sure we want that, though: I think having the articles in the error category is better than having categories we don't need. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transwikied articles

Hey, Rus, when you transwiki an article, could you put the whole URL of the permanent link in the edit summary instead of just the oldid number? That way, people could get to that version of the article directly instead of having to search for it. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look at a couple of your recent articles and I see now what you're talking about. Yes, I can do that. You might give some thought to adding this information to the Transwiki attribution page. Rus793 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good idea. I'll do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Christian etc

I also noted that the En article is new, and its reliability and status not yet determined. That's not a criterion, but it adds to the unwiseness of having the article on Simple at this time. Anyway, you had this to say on the talk page: "The QD request was made due to the article being a copy-paste of a complex enwiki article of the same name. Articles need to be simplified (re-written in Simple English) and attribution has to be given (credit for the original authors) to comply with copyright. The latter is a legal requirement of Wikipedia. Please see: Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. If the article is deleted, it is because of these two violations of policy. There are other issues with this article as well."

Well, I just thought you might like to retain a copy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I will. Rus793 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, Rus, this article still needs a lot of simplifying. I debated whether to QD it, but decided to tag it. If you can't get to it soon, let me know and I can move it to your userspace for you. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave it some needed attention. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014 WTA Tour

I am aware of the problems associated with the article and will be doing my best to solve them. YellowStahh (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you need any help or additional resources, just ask. You can post any question at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Hope you enjoy editing here. Rus793 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sourcing I am alright with, is there anything you are able to point to as far as the English being over complicated? Also any examples of the code not being wikified would be helpful, I understand there are the line breaks and the background colour as far as I can see there aren't other ways around this usage. YellowStahh (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, let's take this back to your talk page. If I can help, then the discussion there is controlled by you. I archive my discussions from time to time and might inadvertently remove a conversation, especially if it gets lengthy. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no sources tag

I don't think a no sources tag is needed where the page is so short that it obviously needs more content of all kinds, as with Finless porpoise. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't policies and guidelines say that all facts here should be verified by reliable sources? That's not to say you didn't raise an interesting point. But then I'd ask, should we have a minimum length for stubs? I mean, if they're too short to even need a source citation (too short to present a simple statement of fact?), should they even be published here? Rus793 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but by the flag you're not saying anything which is not immediately obvious to any reader. And they do have stub notices which means we can search for them if we want to. The real issue comes with longer unreferenced articles, where it may be unclear to a reader whether the material really is encyclopedic or whether it is OR. Of course it's appropriate to flag biogs of living people because our rules for them are quite specific.
In general, flags don't work. The more we put up, the more likely it is that they will be routinely ignored. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're suggesting to only flag BLPs? Rus793 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neihu District

I have re-declined the QD on this article. Once a QD has been declined, do not QD it again with the same option. Use a different option, or take it to RfD. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copy-pasting articles from the English Wikipedia

The articles have few informations. Can you edit one of them? This way I may understand what I am doing wrong... If you have time of course... Xaris333 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Xaris333. I've left several messages on your talk page, have you had a chance to read these? I've explained the problems and it's not with the length of the articles. In fact, these latest shortened versions (called stubs) are less desirable than what you had at first. The problem currently is attribution. I'll edit Alki Larnaca F.C. for you to add the attribution. Look on that talk page to see an example of attribution. Then, assuming you understand, you can add attribution to the other. There is no guarantee the articles won't be deleted but it may help. If they are deleted I can help you with recreating them so they fit in nicely at this wiki. Once you have read this and other messages on your talk page, it's a good idea to respond. If you're unfamiliar with talk pages, see this guideline: Wikipedia:Talk page. Rus793 (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. The attribution statement is on the Talk:Alki Larnaca F.C. page. Please respond so I know you've seen it and either understand or need some additional help. Then we can discuss how to simplify an article. Rus793 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

transwiki template

Probably don't have to worry about it on those articles I rejected the speedy on because I went and imported over all the attribution already so they don't need the template. But yeah, its generally better on articles that are simple just to throw that template on than to delete it and lose an article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to take that as an OK to go back to adding attribution templates myself—at least as examples to get new editors started doing this. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, attribution templates definitely don't have to be added by the person bringing the page over. As long as we as a wiki say where we got the information from that is perfectly acceptable. Being as I am an admin I usually just bring over the edit history itself, but as a non admin the template works fine for you. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you didn't create the article, how can you know what version was used? Not being able to know that is why I don't place attribution templates on articles I didn't create. In any case, even if you place them, I hope you'll keep telling the creators that they need to do it themselves. I'd hate to see this become another thing that constantly has to be taken care of because the creators get used to someone else doing it. Maybe the remedy is to block editors who routinely don't take care of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When using a transwiki attribution template on a new article here, it's usually within hours or, at most, a day or so to place the attribution template on the talk page. The logical time to do this is while the new article is being patrolled. So there isn't much time for the original page to have changed versions. In those few cases where it did change you'd have to assume the version number would be very close. A small error in version numbers is a small issue when compared to no attribution at all. Now, if this was months or even years later, it might be more of an issue. I agree also with encouraging new users to attribute. I don’t mind adding the templates to 'prime the pump' so to speak, but I wouldn't want to follow new users around and continually place attribution templates for them because they refuse to comply. Rus793 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not all that concerned with exact version numbers especially because a completely valid attribution is to mention in your edit summary that its based on the en version of the article with no version number at all. The only requirement to attribute is a mention of where the original is. If you notice on the template documentation the edit version is only recommended but not required. But by all means if its a serial offender tell them. I mostly only see it when its one off cases. -DJSasso (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making the article as simple as possible

I don't know if I should have continued the conversation on my talk page, but I decided to use yours instead. I hope you don't mind! So anyways, I am having issues translating some parts of the article into Simple English. Like you stated before, the second sentence of the article isn't simple. However I honestly can't think of anyways on making it simpler. Maybe I'm thinking that I should make it too simple, I don't know. So whenever you have time, I would appreciate some help on translating that sentence. Thank you for replying to my previous argument so quickly. --Alicezeppelin (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since we started the conversation on your talk page, if you don't mind we'll continue it there. It's much easier to keep track of and you have control of your talk page. I'll copy the above to continue the conversation. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about reverting you on multiple fruit!

Sorry about that, I thought I had somehow inserted that wiktionary link by clicking some mysterious button in the editor. It looks much better now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem. I didn't know if it was your oops or mine. BTW, there really isn't much work to patrolling your articles; have you given any thought to requesting Patroller rights? That would automatically mark your articles as patrolled (they would not appear on the New pages list as needing to be patrolled). It's just a thought. Rus793 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I've done that sort of thing on another wiki, but here I have so few edits that I expected the request would be denied. Maybe later. (It would be nice if the pages didn't show up on the New Pages list for a while, say an hour, so that the creator got a chance to finish working on them.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, they show up on that list right away. In practice, if I see an article or stub has just been posted, I try to come back later. It's an effort to be considerate but also it's being practical, since editors often make changes just after publishing the article. So it avoids edit conflicts. Also, there can be other patrollers working the list and new pages also appear on the New changes list. One way to work on an article after it's been posted is to utilize the Template:In use, or for longer periods, the Template:Under construction. Administrators, patrollers and most editors will respect the fact the banner is on the page and wait to edit or patrol the page. It can buy you several hours of undisturbed editing. Just be sure to remove it when you're finished. Rus793 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that sounds potentially useful. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick deletion requests

Hello Rus793,

you nominated Real Madrid Castilla, Fábio Coentrão and Pohang for quick deletion (under copyright violation, lack of sources). The tags were contested, so I have removed them. If you still think the pages should be deleted, please go through a regular deletion process. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks for notifying me. Rus793 (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion notice on The Book of Life (movie)

I don't understand what constitutes WP:Crystal on this article. Can someone please tell me? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that can see into the future. In the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it states: "Wikipedia is not for posting facts about the future events that are not notable and have no references that do not show why they are important and are not certain to happen. This encyclopedia is about notable events that have happened." Note that the statement leaves some room for future events that could be considered notable. But movies aren't usually good candidates due to the numerous setbacks a film can and often does encounter before its final release. Rus793 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Rus793. You have new messages at Talk:Puli.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Come on, let's discuss it... --Hafspajen (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Anthem of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic


When I created the article, Anthem of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, I looked at other articles for examples such as the Anthem of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. I believe the article is simple enough for non-native English speakers to understand. The original version from English Wikipedia is already (and unusually) simple. The changes from the original are small. I personally favor alterations of the article instead of its deletion.

When it comes to the lyrics, that's another question. The lyrics (like in other national anthem articles in Simple English Wikipedia I have come across) have not been simplified. Should the lyrics be revised and simplified from its original version in English Wikipedia or should they stay unaltered? Any suggestions on the lyrics?

Could you let the article stay and make alterations instead of deleting it?

Thanks. (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, by the time I saw this it had been deleted. It was not in compliance with our policies on copying from another wikipedia without simplification. Also, it has apparently been repeatedly submitted and deleted before. That's not good. For that reason it is now restricted to registered users who are autoconfirmed. Now, you can become a registered user (pretty simple, sign up for an account), and you can become autoconfirmed. First, take a little time to familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies here. Registering here also allows you your own user space (userspace), called a sandbox, where you can develop an article before posting it as a new article. You can take all the time you need. You can get other editors to help you, look it over for you, and tell you what policies and guidelines you need to look at before proceeding. You can copy articles from another wiki. But, you must simplify them and give attribution (credit to those editors who originally wrote the article). It's a legal requirement. See the article Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia and read it over carefully. For anything you don't understand, ask questions. Also read: Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. It will get you off to a good start. The requirements to become an autoconfirmed user varies by situation, but for most it's that you have your account at least four days and make at least ten good edits. Now, that particular article is going to be a little harder to simplify. It has quite a few very specific words and names. You might consider something a bit easier to simplify first. In general simplifying refers to the sentence structure. A simple sentences has a verb, a subject, and expresses a complete thought. You want to use more simple sentences and fewer complex ones. Also, simplifying applies to the words that are used. We try to use more Simple English words and for those words not in Simple English, we link them to other simple English articles or to the Simple English Wiktionary. Text that is in quotes (like the lyrics) should not be simplified, but the English language translation should be. The amount of information presented to readers should be considered also. You have six different sets of lyrics. Could you do with four, or even two? It's something you always consider. Anyway, I hope this helps. Rus793 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I noticed that you have patrolled some of User's articles about colleges in Japan. I see you have removed some Commons category tags when there is no category at Commons, so that's good, but all of the articles have needed a lot more cleanup than that. Could you do at least some more of the obvious things before patrolling the articles? I just left the user a note here about what has needed cleanup. (I've actually done more cleanup that what I listed there, but some of what I did wasn't as important.) Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to the user page of "Rus793/Archive 3".