User talk:Rus793/Archive 6

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Stewi101015 in topic Have some ... ?

A barnstar for you!

  The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations, for recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!

Thank you for improving and expanding the coverage of historical biographies in the encyclopedia, and for all your contributions. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Another barnstar for you!!

  The Citation Barnstar
For adding source citations to the article Gilbert de Clare, 1st Earl of Hertford and many others like it!! Mugginsx (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply



Here's some insight into vandaliam and what to watch for:

Archived 9/27/2015:



Take a look at Chloe Khan.--Sinbad (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sinbad, Not sure what I was looking for, the article looked good as it was. It had already been patrolled when I saw it. The BLP article is well sourced. I added a couple of links and moved a source that better supported a different statement. Other than that was there something else I should look at? User:Rus793 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for late reply. But it looks good now!--Sinbad (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

hi rus793


i read your message but basilica cistern page in Wikipedi was prepared by me and the informations in basilica cistern page was taken from Plese don't delete the link it is a reliable source — This unsigned comment was added by Haruneme (talk • changes) at 15:29, 27 July 2015‎.

The problem is, it does not meet our definition of a reliable source as presented on the web page per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We aren't talking about the English language definition of reliable, we following Wikipedia's definition. That's a very important difference. Whether you wrote the blog or not, you must consider the blog, the website, and the publisher, the same as you would any other website per the guideline. I'm going to add it back but in the "Other websites" section per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Other_websites It says "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources can be linked here". As you have been informed of our guidelines (and really should read them) putting it back as a source could be considered knowingly adding wrong information. Make no mistake, I saw nothing wrong with the information in the blog and it is very well written. I didn't see anything in the blog that wasn't verified by other sources on the subject. If I had written it I'd be proud of it myself. But, that isn't the issue. It is still a blog and for that reason not considered a reliable source for citing remarks in the article. It doesn't matter how correct the information is, it is the type of web page it is on. If that same information (by you) was published on a web page like Condé Nast, Frommer's, or National Geographic (as just a few examples), it would be called an article and would be a reliable source. Your edit to the simplewiki article also removed a reliable source which we don't do without giving a good reason either on the talk page or edit comment. Then, inadvertently I'm sure, the edit broke text-source integrity corrupting two additional statements. It is fixed now and your article is at the top of the 'Other websites' section. If you have any questions or would like any help please ask or post to Wikipedia:Simple talk. Thank you User:Rus793 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply



my bad --Softstarrs23 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's OK, we welcome your additions. It's just that articles from the English Wikipedia are too complicated as they are. We're called Simple English Wikipedia because we try to use Basic English (also called Simple English) and simple sentences. Our target readers are young people and those who are new to the English language. Articles here aren't necessarily shorter than at enwiki, in fact many are longer because it sometimes takes more sentences to explain something in Simple English. See the Wikipedia:Welcome page for more useful links to help get you started. Don't be afraid to ask other editors questions or ask for help if you need it. Thanks and good luck here. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

July 2015


(Conversation moved back to User talk:

help on Demolition


I'm gonna need help on Demolition. I think the page may be complex. Can you please identify any complex words in the article? Angela Maureen (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I put something on your talk page that I hope helps. To some extent technical articles with a number of specific terms are going to be a little more difficult to simplify. If there is anything you can use go right ahead. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi Rus793. Thank you for the advice. Sometimes I don't put warning messages because I have no time (many times I log in a cafeteria) and must leave soon. From now on I will use Twinkle. Thanks again and greetings. ScienceFiction200 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re: Mi querida España


Thanks for your message, i'm shoked. Maybe he didn't listen that song because isn't from his country, but in the mine, Spain is very known, and i don't know what have to see the Spanish Wikipedia its right the fact i translated the article from that language, and it was created two months ago, but the single has almost 40 years old. Well, i'm gonna try to explain him about this song. --Ravave (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I understood it was a song in Spain in 1975. But it has nothing to do with what I or any editor thinks about the song. There is no emotion or bias in a decision that an article may or may not be notable. But right now the article does not show (prove) the song is notable. The article needs statements that claim notability (they should say why it is important). Then those statements need reliable source citations proving they are correct. You may know the song, you may know yourself that it was popular. You might even be thinking: "how could anyone not know this song?" But those who read the article would not know this. They only know if an authoritative article with reliable source citations tells them about the song. If you want to try to explain about the song, do it in the article. Make the article better.
Different language Wikipedias use the notability guideline differently. Because the Spanish language Wikipedia has an article does not mean the Simple English Wikipedia will automatically have the same article. Each project decides differently what may or may not be accepted for publication. But, you can still improve the article during the seven-day RfD process. I know it was produced as a 45 rpm single by CBS in Spain. If the song truly is notable then you should be able to find sources saying it is. You used the word "certified". Did that mean certified record sales? For example, in the US an RIAA certified gold record is one that sold 500,000 copies (singles or albums). Was there a similar certification in Spain in the mid 1970s? What was the song's rank on Spanish music charts in 1975? In the US, for example, on Billboard's Hot 100 the #1 song here was "Love Will Keep Us Together" by Captain & Tennille. If you do some research and find reliable sources (in any language) that can prove its sales or rankings or both, that would help the article. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you

  Rubbish computer has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them! Thank you for your work patrolling new pages.
Thank you, I will enjoy them. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

College Boulevard (NCTD station)


Hi Rus793, if you want to redirect and merge College Boulevard (NCTD station) into an article on the sprinter line, then be bold and do it. I closed the rfd as a keep, only as there did not seem to be consensus or plan on what to do with the page. I don't have a problem with the page remaining, but is does lack almost any useful info. These pages remind me of individual song entries - they would be better on the album page, until such time as they get big enough to warrant a page of their own. Anyhow, I don't think anyone will have a problem if you make changes.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I started to do a redirect but then reverted myself. I went back and read both Steven's and Aunt's comments carefully and decided we had agreed on a redirect. I just hadn't got back to it yet. Thank you for the reminder and the suggestion. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Laura Branigan


Stop reverting my mods to the Laura Branigan article. Wiki has already accepted 1952 as her birthdate, as has Internet Movie Database, so you're going to have to eat crow. Check this out (search for birthdate): —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015

Out of curiousity how did you convince both to make the change? User:Rus793 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) Rus, I don't care a ton about the subject (with all due respect to her). But German Wikipedia, at least, does cite this document, [1]. This was put out by the school district where Ms. Branigan went to high school, and it mentions that she graduated from the high school in 1970. Directly, that's not proof of anything, of course. But if she had in fact been born in 1957, she would have been 13 (or even 12) when she graduated from high school. That very fact would have been a noteworthy item to include in biographies in various places, Wikipedia and elsewhere—but you don't see such an item anywhere. So by indirect evidence, I think one can reject a 1957 birth date as "highly unlikely". Beyond that, I cannot say. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Before all this started I didn't know who she was. But I looked into this particular "fact" before. The article is "2008-2009 High School Awards", and mentions a Laura Branigan. The enticing tidbits of information are the mention of a Laura Branigan Award and a Laura Branigan who was a member of the BHHS class of 1970. It is an easy presumption this is Laura Branigan the singer who died in 2004. But the problem is, it is a presumption. This article does not make that connection. There are, in fact, several women from that area named Laura Branigan. From WP:OR "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments." This is unquestionably a passing comment. The article isn't about Laura Branigan. I also question whether this is clear or unclear regarding the date of 1970 or more specifically "BHHS 1970." Our fan had this clue combined with other clues that the famous singer graduated in 1970, which is synthesis. Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, did that reference to a class of 1970 mean she graduated in the spring of 1970 or started in the fall of 1970? Was that clear in the article? The difference is five calendar years (four school years). I had always thought the class year meant the graduating year. But I discovered it can be either one. Traditionally many high schools and colleges use the graduating year as the class year, but not all do. I learned this when starting at a new school only to find out my class year was now my freshman, not my senior year. Since the mention does not say which it is, are we to presume it is the graduating year? I guess the odds would be on our side but is that in keeping with WP's guidelines and policies? Wikipedia has standards for reliable sources--none of which state that just because something is in print it is a fact. The school newsletter is published by the public relations department of a nearby vocational school. Does that measure up to the standard "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I think "third party" and "published" are shown. But are there editorial controls (fact-checking)? Did just one or two people produce this? Is this a reliable source? See, these are questions that cannot be answered from the article. So, do we just use it anyway? The BBC, The New York Times, People Magazine and others used in the article are established as reliable sources. They do have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Does this mean they can never make a mistake? No, it just means that they are unlikely to make a mistake. This is not to mention all 13 sources in the article are guilty of the same mistake (birth year being 1957). How likely is that? WP uses reliable secondary sources for a reason and rejects those that are far more likely to be in error. I'm sure our superfan would like us to toss out all these downright inconvenient rules. BTW, look what is happening on at the Swedish Wikipedia Laura Branigan article (it changes daily). Seems there is an edit war going on at four projects (that I know of) over this. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) , Rus and StevenJ81, (I do not even like her and now she will have notability just over the conflict). At English Wikipedia, the tide is turning towards concensus that all those terrible sources are okay to justify her DOB as 1952: Find a Grave, you tube, an instagram photo, an entire vegetable garden of non-reliables! ...I agree the date is contested and has been since 2008, at least on Enwiki. I say we do nothing until the dust settles, at least. Here is an appropriate image for a laugh: Fylbecatulous talk 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Notability wasn't an issue. She meets the notability requirement. But the English Wikipedia article is a good example of what happens when nobody is paying any attention. If we end up using junk references over reliable sources then I think this article should simply be deleted—and salted! Having the article is not worth the trouble. I'm more than tired of wasting time on this subject myself. But the issue challenges this wiki's right to have our own criteria for what we will and will not publish. I know the article is not worth scrapping the guidelines, policies and consensus of the wiki. But you're right, the image is worth a laugh and it does lighten the situation. Thanks. BTW, if you like humorous tags did you notice the one at the top of this page? Found it at enwiki and did a double-take. Maybe it's not funny if you have to point it out. Anyway... User:Rus793 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did notice yours. I love user pages and talk pages that are unique so I always notice all the decorations. Yours is what made me decide to add mine from my collection. :) I do believe mine is snagged from enwiki, as well. It is rare to have one work here and there too...<smiles> Fylbecatulous talk 18:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rus' (people)


Wikipedia:COI. :P eurodyne (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is the problem and why would you post this? I have to add, I'm completely at a loss here as to where this is coming from or what it is about. Please explain. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
It was meant to be a joke. Sorry if I caught you off guard. eurodyne (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I had my nose deep into several sources and couldn't get my train of thought wrapped around this. Now that I've come up for air, yes I see the humor. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

moved to C-Sqwad's sandbox1

Reviewing articles


Are you taking on the review of C-Sqwad's articles? I see that he/she created more articles in mainspace today, and that you fixed most of them up. I need to know if he/she is doing what I asked and having the articles reviewed first. Please let me know. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

He asked for me to look at a few, usually individually. I'm not sure one editor here can keep up with him but I'll help him as much as I can. So far the ones he's asked about been in mainspace. I think he just doesn't understand your directive or he's too enthusiastic. I've brought it up (as you can see from his talk page) but I don't see any generic sandboxes attached to his account yet. I was hoping that if we talked today I could get a handle on that part and get him to start them in userspace. To his credit, the ones he did post yesterday were simplified better and needed less work. Let me try one more time to settle him down. I think I can get him to comply. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll give it a little more time. I did see that his/her more recent articles were better, although very short. Thanks for working with him/her. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply



I see you don't have an e-mail facility, so I raise a question here rather than off-site. Is it in your mind that you would like to be considered for admin? You are probably the most active non-admin in dealing with our many little problem cases, and I would be happy to propose you for adminship if you would like this to happen. It takes a lot of experience to do this job well, and you do have this experience. So, what about it? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the offer. I hadn't given it any serious thought and I'm pretty comfortable in my editor's hat. I'd say for right now, no. I'm also not a big fan of the RfA process, necessary as it may be. But thank you for offering. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
BTW, my email is reset and working fine now. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

WP:NOT and A4


A Maternal insult does not have to have a "claim of notability" (A4), and I'm pretty sure it does not come under WP:NOT (unless you could provide where it states that in said page). I'm failing to see what exactly was wrong with that article besides it only having one reference. I've added another reference from The Guardian, which is a reputable source - so I'm pretty sure it meets the notability guideline now. --  Kethrus |talk to me  17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The way it is written it appears to be more a dicdef. WP:NOT says is Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:DICDEF points out that an article may begin with a definition but would have more content. I'd say if it had more content that would seem to make the difference. I can take another look. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Kethrus: It seems that the sources you cited have a lot more information and examples you could use. That would make this less a dicdef and more an article. It would also allow you to spread out the sources you used. Yo Momma Jokes are specifically discussed in this source (beginning on p. 7): .User:Rus793 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

2008 Lions


Thanks for helping me on the 2008 Lions article. -- (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) Rus, I don't have a problem with an article on the '08 Lions. But I'm not sure I'm much in favor of a redirect at 0-16. Yes, that was their record that year, but I don't see that as being the sort of thing we would normally keep as a redirect. Do you? StevenJ81 (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
@StevenJ81: Hi Steven. No I don't. I didn't even link to 0-16 and instead explained it in parentheses. Whatever was in the 0-16 article or redirect has been deleted so I can't see what this is about. Checking my own User's changes for yesterday I see I added Safety, Win, Bye week (creating the stub Bye (sports))—all in support of the 08 Lions article. But I don't recall or see anything showing I did anything with 0-16. Are you sure it was me? User:Rus793 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh I see why that 0-16 redirect was deleted by Auntof6. There can be another NFL team who can match what the 2008 Lions. -- (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
@ and Rus793: Rus didn't do that one, the IP did. I was looking for a consult there. But Aunt beat me to the deletion. We normally only include redirects that reflect either
It's not only that another team could match what the '08 Lions did. One wouldn't normally "look up" 0-16 for the purpose of finding an article on the '08 Lions—at least not on Wikipedia. About the only type of article I could imagine "0-16" being a legitimate redirect for would be something like "List of NFL teams with no-win seasons"—and even then I'm not so sure. 74, feel free to ask Rus or me about what might make a legitimate redirect. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Closing this discussion. -- (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Elder High School


Thanks you for helping. -- (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Soul Sessions


Moved discussion to User talk: The conversation was started there, let's continue there. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply



Not sure why this stub needs to go really. I thought inhabited places were always considered notable. Btw, I am not the same IP that created it. (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter who created it. I didn't tag it due to notability, I tagged it because it was too short and cryptic. "An island of the east coast of Greece" doesn't say much about where it is. Basically a stub needs to have enough information to tell readers what the subject of the article is about and in this case where it is. I'll see if I can improve it some to demonstrate. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar

  The Working Man's Barnstar
This is long overdue for you. You work very hard on documentation and on content, and really deserve some recognition. So here's some recognition! StevenJ81 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I appreciate it very much. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hello? I left you a message on "Wikipedia:Simple talk". I hope I don't seem impatient.  :) Stewi101015 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC) The gray/red "Notifications" bell doesn't seem to work correctly. Numbers show but I can't find any new "notifications". Stewi101015 (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was just in the process of logging off and saw a message alert. Let me get back to you in a little while and I'll see if I can help. User:Rus793 (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, thank you. What is a "message alert"? Stewi101015 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's the same thing. The bell shape when red shows your Alerts (the link explains them). The other indicator shows you have messages. We just recently separated them into two indicators. The numbers indicate how many. Sometimes they remain even after you have clicked on the indicator, especially if you had other windows open at the time. Here is something to read regarding using talk pages Help:Talk page. Meanwhile before I sign off for the evening I'll try to answer your questions on Simple talk. One of the reasons why you want to wait for an answer is that if you edit your message or add another, it could cause an edit conflict. It's best to post a message, then wait for the reply. It helps to have something else to do in the meanwhile. Anyway, I hope this helps. User:Rus793 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, there are two things now, a bell and what looks like two curled squares. Stewi101015 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, there are two things now, a bell and what looks like two curled squares. Stewi101015 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is your messages indicator. I need to go for the night. You have links on your talk page to keep you occupied. Keep track of questions you might have about a particular guideline so you can ask one of us later. Sometimes I need to read something a couple of times to fully understand. You should set up a Sandbox for yourself to practice in. There is a link to do it for you at the bottom of the Sandbox guideline (Create a user subpage link). User:Rus793 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I found a big message from you on my Talk Page. It looks like I have much reading/learning to do ... Stewi101015 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK to sign0ff, thank you.  :) Stewi101015 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply


  Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

--Fdena (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that was nice of you. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Mmm - Milk!
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

(talk page stalker) Milk goes well with cookies, may I offer you both some? Stewi101015 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Have some ... ?

I'm having some tea ... would you like some too?
I had better slow down on the beer ...

Stewi101015 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Rus793/Archive 6".