User talk:StevenJ81/Archive 2

Template:User patroller and rollbacker 2

We already have Template:User patroller and rollbacker. I personally don't think we need these combination templates anyway, but do we need two for the same thing? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree: plus, they're almost identical. I'd say just modify the original template for formatting quirks. Nobody is using it at all. Osiris (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do that because I'm reluctant to fool with such templates as a matter of principal. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we actually got rid of the other combined ones a while back. Maybe we can get rid of this one, too? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Up to you guys. I don't have a problem with getting rid of them if that's what the community prefers. If you do that, please move my version back into my userspace, as I might still like to use it personally. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember. We also have {{User admincrat}} – which doesn't make much sense to me, personally, and which nobody is using either. If we do keep them though, I think one in the community template space should probably be sufficient. If you don't want to edit the original template, then it's probably best just to keep your own version in your userspace and use that. It actually states at the top of Wikipedia:Userboxes that they should be in the user namespace (I don't think I was around when that consensus was formed, but I agree with it for the most part). Osiris (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to edit the original, but maybe a day or two to get there. Thanks for your patience. (Userboxes showing user rights groups are an exception, I think.) StevenJ81 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've pasted your version into Template:User patroller and rollbacker. You can always keep a copy in your userspace if you'd rather not use the community's. Let me know if you want the edit history of your version restored somewhere. Osiris (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

We're good. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki link in Common Era

I saw your change to this article. I see that the Hebrew page is in Wikidata, but it doesn't seem to appear without the manual link you added. I've never seen that before. Do you know why that happens? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. What happens is that the Hebrew page is linked to Anno Domini. So it's in Wikidata, but wouldn't appear at Common Era.

If I had my way—and if we were really accurate, as far as it goes—the Hebrew page would actually be linked to "Common Era" in Wikidata. The Hebrew, לספירת הנוצרים (lisfirat haNotzrim), means "by the Christians' count." That's not quite either Common Era or anno Domini, but is closer in spirit to the former. (We Jews don't hold that it is "the year of our Lord," after all.) But anno Domini is still the more widely used term in English and many other languages, so it is probably more useful to have the link remain where it is. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Well, a page shouldn't be linked to more than one place, even manually. You could change it in Wikidata. In the meantime, I've removed that link here and on enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, that's actually not correct. There is a great deal of discussion about that on Wikidata (and elsewhere), and the conclusion is that Wikidata itself only allows one-to-one mapping, but that manual interwiki links are still allowed in other cases. If you can find me a policy that says otherwise, please let me know! I'll wait 24 hours or so, but unless you can show me a policy to the contrary, I'm going to restore those iw's. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Never mind. I found a redirect in Hebrew Wikipedia I could use as an anchor. It's a little odd: to link to a redirect in Wikidata, you first have to disable the redirect. Then you can create a link in Wikidata. Then you can re-enable the redirect. But if you don't disable the redirect first, Wikidata won't let you link to it.

I'd still like to know if you can actually find a policy barring manual iw links. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There's probably a reason you can't link redirects in Wikidata -- if it's just a redirect, there's no actual article: a redirect and an article aren't a match. Do you know of a policy about that? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't. But I don't think the reason is because a redirect and an article aren't a match. I think it's a software issue.

The error message that I get when I try to link to an active redirect is that the item is already in another WD entry. But the WD entry is inevitably the entry for the target article, not the redirect. I think the WM software effectively replaces a the link to a redirect with a link to its target whenever you see it. BUT ... if you connect to the redirect first—because it's not [currently] a redirect, it adds the link to the redirect. Once you've done that, you can safely activate the redirect, and everything works fine.

As far as I can tell, WD policy, at minimum, allows such links. There is a recognition over there that articles don't always link on a one-to-one and onto basis, and the alternatives—non-exclusive linking to articles, and linking to sections of articles—are not allowed. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vocab lists

You mentioned in the SE talk some SE vovab lists. Where are they? Kdammers (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kdammers:, you can find them by looking at my sandbox, where I have links to them at the top. Then, if you find that to be useful, you can add them to the top of your sandbox by inserting the template {{User sandbox|links=yes}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the invite. I try to fix things myself but sometimes I like to get a second opinion. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

How to determine if a page is notable

I moved the project from Aunt's talk page to a sandbox set up for the purpose. All suggestions so far were able to be incorporated into the updated version. See; User talk:Rus793/How to determine if a page is notable. I left a note on Aunt's talk page as well. thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rus793: Thanks. Do you want to move over the discussion to date? (As long as you document it, you probably can, if you want.) Otherwise, I'd leave a note on your new sandbox referring to the back-discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a note on the back-discussion is enough. What is there now is refined from the discussion on Aunt's page. Hopefully it's getting closer to a finished idea. Next, I think, is how to best use it. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the Help:Notability page, and especially for the shortcut. BTW, I withdrew the RfD for Oleh Tymoshenko. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Hi, Steven. Thanks for your comments on the deletion policy page. Please try not to use second person ("you", "your") when you write here (except in userspace or on talk pages). There is information about this here in the Manual of Style. That manual is mostly about writing articles, but much of it, including this topic, also applies to pages in other namespaces.

I've rewritten what you added so that second person isn't used. If you ever need help phrasing something without using it, let me know. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I never use it in my own writing. I thought it might sometimes leader to simpler phrasing here. But I won't do it again. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

New page patroller

I created this userbox not too long ago. I thought it about time NP patrollers had a box also. Since you also patrol new pages I thought I'd point it out to you in case you'd like to use it. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Template:User NP Patrol

Wikipedia:Notability (movies)

It looks very good. In 'Related pages' why are Wikipedia:Notability and Help:Notability on the same line and why are they bolded? I was going to change it but thought I'd ask you first. I thought you might have been in the middle of changing it to something else. Otherwise, shouldn't it look like other bulleted lists sections? Just wondering, thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

I think they go together, and listed them that way intentionally. But if you want to change the formatting I am not wedded to that idea. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, they do belong together but they would also be together as a list. Let me try the change. Look at it and if you still prefer bolded and on the same line then OK. Or change it back if you don't think there is enough emphasis like this. Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I like it better the other way. But that's just me, and the page is not just mine, it's public. Let's see if anyone else says anything. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin close

Steven, if you're going to to do non-admin closes of RfDs, please make sure you do them right. The correct template to use is {{kept}}, not {{keep}}. Also, the closing comments need to be signed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Was having some computer problems yesterday, and somehow things weren't working right for me. I thought I'd fixed those issues. Will be more careful.

While we're talking: I don't have a problem that you deleted the redirects from my user space to the new movie guideline page. But the rules on QD reason R2 do specify waiting a couple of days in cases like that to make sure that everyone has had a chance to clean up any links to the original page. I hadn't had a chance to go check that before you deleted the redirects. In the future, I'd appreciate your waiting those couple of days, or telling me that you've cleaned it all up. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin close, again

I saw that you made some changes to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Talk:Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel after another user tried to do a non-admin close. Between the two of you, that close wasn't done properly, and I cleaned it up. It would be better if you don't do admin closes -- we don't usually do them here anyway. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Glossary addition

Steven, I copied the word userfy from the enwiki glossary to ours. It's a word more commonly used on that project and it does link to the enwiki essay that better explains it. @Auntof6: Since you use the word more than anyone else here could you take a look also? See if you have anything you might want to add or reword? Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rus793 Good idea. (Of course, it's slang/lingo, not a real word. But that doesn't mean it's not useful.) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

2008 Lions

Thanks for explaining! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Another help page

I was working on a new help page and wondered if you'd like to take a look at it? See what you think and any improvements or wording changes you think might be warranted. It's currently at Rus793/help. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rus793: I'll try to look at it tomorrow or over the weekend. (Let's work on the copy at User:Rus793/help, and have @Auntof6 QD the copy at Rus793/help.) StevenJ81 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, moving a little too fast that time. Thanks for the move. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cat-A-Lot

Hello. Just in case you haven't seen it, I've replied to your question at my Meta talk page. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating maintenance categories

Thanks for creating Category:Pages needing to be simplified from November 2015. You might not have known, but maintenance categories use the template {{Monthly clean-up category}} (or one of its redirects) for standard setup. Please use that template when creating maintenance categories. Most maintenance categories don't require any parameters, but the categories for pages needing to be simplified do require some. You can look at an existing one to see how it's done. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Don't forget that when you nominate an item for deletion, the original creator should be notified. :) This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|<page to be deleted>}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni: Yeah, I know. I started getting lazy, partly because most of the recent ones I've done were started by IPs, and partly because Twinkle hasn't been working correctly for me here. Thanks for the reminder! StevenJ81 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

groups of animals

Well, we don't have "coterie", but we do have:

• long-term associations
  • Colony (biology)
  • Herd
  • Pack (canine)
• short-term associations
  • Collective animal behaviour
  • Shoaling and schooling
  • Swarm

Happy reading! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you!

I know what a coterie is, in principle. I just wondered whether there was some technical definition in birding that I should capture. I'll do something with coterie next week sometime, I imagine. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Jingle Bell Rock

This morning when we were dealing with that RfD for Jingle Bell Rock I noticed that the article needed some improvement. I've made some edits to it: take a look if you are interested. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Bringing templates from enwiki

I saw your comment on the RfD about reducing templates when you bring them from enwiki. I also saw your comment about helping fix that Batman template, where you said we may not need the parts that aren't showing up. In general, if you remove parts of templates like that, be aware that you could be making it harder to maintain the templates. That is because it is a common practice to update templates by recopying them from enwiki. We don't have to keep our templates the same as enwiki's, and I'm not saying you shouldn't modify them, but keep in mind that if we need to update a template your modifications may be lost if an editor doesn't want to or doesn't know how to edit template code. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

When to use underline char

Stevej, thanks for the info. I am putting together a small group to work on Australian bird entries to Simple Wikipedia. They are all in their 70s, and so I will try to act as a helper to take the load off you.

A couple of questions:

Q 1. The entry I recently created in Simple Wiki for Australian birds was Noisy_miner with the underline character required in the URL. If in another entry I want to hot link to it, do I need to use Noisy_miner or just Noisy miner with a space.

Just use the space for a link, the underline is used in a url because it can not have spaces.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I ask because I tried to create a hotlink to the Indian or Common miner, which is in the en.wikipedia.com section and the Preview wouldn't accept it either way Common_myna or Common myna. The official URL for this bird is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_myna (which is an Indian bird introduced to Australia) and there's also a Common_miner (A South American bird) which is confusing.

We do not create links to enwiki from our articles. Make a normal link which will probably be a redlink, which shows the article needs to be created here.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Q.2 If we go ahead and create an entry in the Simple Wikipedia for the introduced Indian myna, to keep it simple we will need to use terms used in Australia -- not those applicable to Asia or America.

Do it the way enwiki does it, the article is created about the bird in its native country or region. Information about it being an invasive species in Australia can be a sub section of that article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In Australia the Common_myna is generally known as an Indian_miner or Indian_myna or Indian_mynah --- although in Western Australia [where the Native miner (officially Noisy miner) is unknown], it is also known as the Common miner because there is no other type of miner.

Can we create a simple entry headed, say, "Indian myna (in Australia)" and then concentrate on the problems of having an introduced species which reached plague proportions.

If so, what would the hotlink to the URL be? Indian_myna_(in_Australia)

See above.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Q.3 If we just create a general Common_myna entry in Simple Wikipedia, how do we differentiate in other hotlinks between the Simple and the Main entry ? Common_myna would be the same with both entries. Or does Wiki look for a match in Simple Wikipedia, then go to the Main only if it doesn't find one. Or do we need to treat it as a "ref" and give the full URL ?

See above answer, Simple Wiki is a separate project, so we don't link between them. It will look for an entry here, and if there isn't one, it will create a redlink. Once an article is created here, it will generally automatically generate a link to the enwiki version on the left hand side navigation bar. That creates links to all the different language versions of the article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Q.4 When we wish to use a pix from the Main Wikipedia entry in the Simple version, how should we express the command ? There seems to be two ways, but I can't find an explanation of the difference:

File:Indian myna.jpg

caption

File:Indian myna.jpg

caption

I am not sure there is much difference. However, some pictures on enwiki will not work here, we have different copyright rules. (These are closer to the Australian copyright rules). To source a picture we do it from Commons. If you find a suitable photo, it will generate the correct code for our articles here. And you can add your own photos to Commons to use here, although you have to make them available under a Creative Commons copyright. This means anyone can use them for free, but they must acknowledge you as the owner. i have done this for a lot of Australian images. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Here's an example:

Indian Myna

Most of the explanatory material I've read so far is totally confusing.

It is, but just have a go, Wikipedia will not break, if you make a mess, it can be fixed, and no one complains about someone who is trying to learn. We all did too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Peterdownunder (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Screen

Hello. I’m a new wikipedia userpage and I would like to know how to edit a special page in wikipedia. I saw that you had a lot of skills in wikipedia. I wondering of how did you so good in it. May you tell me some importance edits?16chseld 112 (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@16chseld 112: Welcome. Tell me what you are interested in editing, and I will be glad to try to help. (By the way: "special" pages in Wikipedia are usually pages about the system itself, and most people cannot edit them.) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Child unfriendly topics on Simple English Wikipedia

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#How_are_.22child_unfriendly.22_topics_handled_on_EN.simplewiki.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Fair enough. This wiki is certainly not censored, per se. I still think people are mindful of the fact that children are part of the audience here. But you have an answer you can use now. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:European diasporas

Do you still think you might do this? The template is still unused. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar

Hi StevenJ81, I was looking at the enwiki version of the page and I think ours would be improved by adding the names of the days of the week. You have included the fact that the names are simply numbers for counting, but as a person totally ignorant of the subject, I found giving the actual names interesting. I will keep looking for more improvements so that it can make the standard easily. I have made a few minor changes, more to make it flow better, rather than anything being incorrect.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Peterdownunder: I appreciate your help on this; thank you very much. I will do that soon.

If you really want to be blown away on that subject, check out en:Names of the days of the week! Maybe I should try to work on that one next. If you have transwiki import, go ahead and bring that in on a subpage of my user page and I'll work on it next. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. Just to keep you busy its now at User:StevenJ81/Names of the days of the week.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, Peter, if there is anything else in the en article you think I ought to include, let me know. There is a lot of material there. I know the material pretty well, but my feeling is that much of the rest is technical detail not of interest to a general audience. But I'm absolutely prepared to take advice if there are other pieces here and there that should be included. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Good morning, Peter. I've added a table for days of the week; have a look. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sabbath dab page

Hi, Steven. I wanted to let you know that I removed the text you added to Sabbath (disambiguation). You might not have known, but disambiguation pages (also called "dab pages") don't have the kind of detail that you added to the top of that page: that kind of detail belongs in articles. Dab pages need only an introductory phrase and detail lines, one for each article being disambiguated. They can also have a Wiktionary link if the term exists in Wiktionary.

You are welcome to add the detail you had to the Sabbath article. It is still available in the page history, or your sandbox where you worked on it can be restored.

Feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Auntof6: When we discussed it two years ago, we were going to have a single page to serve the purposes of both the current Sabbath and the current Sabbath (disambiguation). I thought we had decided on "Sabbath (disambiguation)". I don't care if we decide that it belongs on "Sabbath" instead. But do we really need both pages? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, both are needed. The dab page is to help readers find different articles they may have in mind when they're looking for "Sabbath". That is the only purpose of a dab page. The article is the place for the detail. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

On other wikis, there's not always a bright line in such cases. But I can see where perhaps we ought to be consistent about doing things like that here. So I'll go add those to the page Sabbath instead. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WT:GEOLAND

Steven, I moved your discussion page to Wikipedia talk:Notability, because we shouldn't have a talk page where there is no main page. I updated your shortcut to point to the new location. Please be sure to delete that shortcut when the discussion is over. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I wanted it where it was because if we in fact create a guideline on this subject (or at least an interpretation of a guideline on this subject), that's where it will live. I figured if we decided to make no changes, I'd move the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Notability afterwards. I think sometimes it's ok to have the talk page there first, frankly. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but talk pages are for discussing an existing page, not a possible future page. We may add the geographic notability stuff to the main notability page, or we may create a separate page. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. do you speak Hebrew ? .....

Hi. פארוק (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@פארוק: Not well. Like most דתיים from the US, I read better than I speak. If you write me in Hebrew, I will likely understand. It will be harder for me to write back in Hebrew, but I can try, with the help of Google Translate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think if you want to write me in Hebrew, it is better to do it at my hewiki talk page (he:שיחת משתמש:StevenJ81) or my ladwiki talk page (lad:Messaje de Usador:StevenJ81). StevenJ81 (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW

Hi Steven. I noticed your FWIW comment on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Time in Afghanistan. Editors like yourself who are widely experienced in finding things on the Internet are hard to imagine as being average Internet users. I taught computer science for over 25 years. In my experience, over half of my freshman (college) students couldn't find the restroom on the first day! I think we sometimes give too much credit to the average Simple English Wiki reader. Just FWIW. Thanks, Rus Rus793 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your comments on the request for rollback page

I don't know what you meant by reading WP:Administrators, but that page describes the responsibilities of administrators and other "crats". With some of those things, non-admin input may have bearing, with others it does not. With granting rights such as rollback and patroller, it does not because that is not a community decision. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but when you weigh in the way you did on things like this, it's not helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Auntof6: "The opinion of an administrator, for example, should not be counted as more important than the opinion of a person who chooses to change Wikipedia with an IP address just because they have administrator rights."

• Clearly, I don't have the right to flip the switch one way or the other.
• It's arguable whether or not I'm entitled to give an opinion as to the suitability of a candidate to get the flag. But since I am entitled (in fact, encouraged) to give my opinion in an RfA, I take it as an a fortiori argument that I can provide such an opinion in a less weighty situation (like RfRollbacker).

Interleaved reply: RfA is by definition a community decision. Requests for rollbacker are not. I'm not saying it's the end of the world when you give an opinion there, just that it's superfluous and can get in the way. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Per the quote above, I unquestionably do have the right to weigh in on how administrators make such decisions, especially when they are interpreting policies and guidelines. My principal point in this discussion was that whether or not that user should or shouldn't have been flagged in the first place, there was no cause to de-flag. And I'm entitled to state that opinion. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm done with this. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Auntof6 (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Read and replied. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin RFD closures

If you're going to do these closures, please do the whole job. When an RFD is closed as kept, the {{oldrfdfull}} template needs to be put on the talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Will do. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Your email

I received the email you sent. If you have a problem with something I do, I prefer that you address it on-wiki unless it involves something confidential, which that did not. If you think I am not handling the admin duties correctly, feel free to bring it up at WP:AN: we might all learn something. In the meantime, I plan to continue the way I have been handling things. You can certainly skip warning levels if you want -- nothing stops you from doing that -- but in most cases I will not block when that has been done. It is not so much a critique of you (you're not the only person who does that) as it is a case of being fair to the vandals. A lot of thought was put into the warning system, and it was designed around the amount of warning that people should be given. That is not something I feel that we should be circumventing in most cases. You may have your reasons for wanting to circumvent it, but I have to use my judgement, not yours. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing the RfD on lists of scientists

I reverted your close of this RfD for two reasons:

• An admin had previously extended the discussion for a few more days.
• Non-admin closures may be done only for clear "keep" outcomes. Closing an RfD as "no consensus" is a judgment call, and may be done only by admins. (I believe you already know that closing as "delete" can be done only be admins because non-admins can't delete pages.)
  --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't close. I was recommending a close. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I guess it threw me off when I saw "close as keep" instead of just "keep". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Soft redirect

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I noticed that this change you made to the above page has partially blanked the template on my user page (but interestingly not on my talk page). I'm not particularly active on simple nor am I good at editing templates, so I don't really know what your edit did to the page although I do understand it fixed an existing problem at the time. Could you take a look? Thanks –72 _(talk) 10:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I think your question helped me understand a problem that had cropped up recently.

I could try to take you through a detailed, but tedious, understanding of this if you like. Suffice it to say that at this point, what the template is producing in your case is:

[[en:user:72]]
This page is a soft redirect.

But a link of that type is not actually an in-line link in practice—it's a manual interwiki link. We don't have to use them much any more because of Wikidata, but those are still the only way to create interwiki links on user pages. (See mine, for example.) So what has happened is that your page now has an interwiki link to the English Wikipedia page—look at the bottom left corner of User:72 and you'll see "English" there. At the same time, since talk pages are not allowed to have interwiki links, the very same template behavior on your talk page gives you a correct link to your English user talk page.

For the vast majority of pages with soft redirect links, my edit corrected a problem that had broken the soft redirects entirely. For one formatted like yours, it created a problem. To fix the problem, change your page to read {{Soft redirect|:en:user:72}}, with a colon in front of the en:, and it will work fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation – it's much appreciated. I assume this is essentially the same as/very similar to the situation of adding a link to a category by adding a colon after the first square brackets to prevent the page from being added to the actual category. On the topic of categories, I noticed that Category:Wikipedia soft redirects has many pages currently featuring the issue I've faced. Is this specifically just an issue with interwiki links no longer being disallowed within the template, or also having two colons in the link? I ask this because of course the template did used to work without the leading colon. For example, Wikipedia:Boardvote appears to work with one colon yet Wikipedia:3O which two, does not (or is meta not considered an interwiki link?).

I further tested this at enwiki using my alt account. See en:User:72 (alt). The interwiki soft redirect appears to work without a leading colon. Is the simplewiki template is missing something that the enwiki one isn't or am I misunderstanding?

Thanks, and please excuse my lack of knowledge in this part of wikipedia! –72 _(talk) 21:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I quite appreciate your questions. Thank you. It's quite similar to the category situation, absolutely.

Actually, I made the change exactly because something started generating double colons on a lot of these pages, and my change was designed to eliminate double colons. I think it's internal to MediaWiki, or to someone's definition of the class=redirectText. I'm just not sure. And at this point, English Wikipedia is using a module-based approach to address this; we're not. So that's a difference in any event. I'll try to dig into it further over time. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Got your email

I took care of the sensitive part (in a different way). Please use the general admins' email for things like that. I'm not aware of the restriction you mentioned (I'm being deliberately vague).

As for the variety of pages you mentioned, let's handle those online. You could start by giving warnings for the issues you've seen and corrected. (A QD notice is not a warning, by the way.) --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I think I was mistaken about the first item. I believe that is in fact true in some places, if you catch my meaning, but I guess it is not universally true, and not true here.

I agree we should handle the pages online; I only mentioned them in the email as an example (and as a sort of reinforcement as to why I thought a revdel might be appropriate, though your approach worked, too). And I didn't even know there was a general admins' email; I'll check that out.

 (change conflict)  Couldn't find a general admins' email. Found oversighters' email, but I had been presuming that basic revdel was sufficient. If there is a general admins' email, shouldn't there be a link to it on WP:AN? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't take a QD notice to be a warning. If I see something else like that, I will start to warn. But under the circumstances, rest assured that I will start with a light and gentle hand. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The general admins' email is simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org. It's the same email that's mentioned in block notices. Please use it only for things that should not or cannot be handled online: we want to keep things as transparent as possible. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Right. I was really only using email for a revdel (which, on the other hand, I didn't feel went all the way to the need for complete oversight). StevenJ81 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment on simplicity

There are many articles but some are complex. Suppose you are teacher because you are a teacher you are writing articles to educate people and we know how teachers try to simplify the matter so that students could easily comprehend it . You just simplify it and cut out unnecessary matter from it . We just wanna read the important things in an article . And it should be simple enough so that atleast you can understand it . If you have made it simple enough interesting enough then people will understand . I mean people aren't that dumb. They will get it . Don't think too much because sometimes when we think too much we might exclude important topics . So just write it keeping the relevancy . Virendra Singh Panwar (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Virendra Singh Panwar: If you have a general question or comment on this, please write at WP:Simple talk. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad to be here and to see you here

Shalom, Steven! When I happened upon your participation in Deletion discussions, I felt reinforced (מתחזקת) in my decision to work on the Simple Wikipedia on a daily basis. My focus begins with articles which are Pages not connected to items (looks familiar...? :-) Besides the intrinsic value of providing interwiki links, especially for readers of the Simple WP who can read other languages and might thus access a more complete article - this exposes pages I can easily/quickly improve. I'll also make a point of weighing in on discussions for deletion, based on my fund of general knowledge. Writing Simple English is also a challenge worth undertaking, considering my usual prolix tendencies in English. Looking forward to future collaborations! -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I can understand why you might have issues elsewhere; the sysops there are probably going to take some definitive action soon. 'Nuff said on that for now.

I'm delighted to see you here, and frankly, I can use help on Judaism subjects. I'm less active here than I used to be because I became sysop on lad, Incubator and Meta (limited). But I do try to watch. I have a couple of enwiki articles imported here that I've been intending to work on (User:StevenJ81/Purim and User:StevenJ81/Tisha B'Av) that I haven't really undertaken yet. Feel free.

BTW, I'm likely to be in the big port city to your west in December or January; grandbaby on the way, בשעה טובה ומוצלחת! StevenJ81 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Dab pages, such as Queue (disambiguation)

Just to explain, the purpose of a dab page is to disambiguate Wikipedia articles that are about things that could be called by the same name. The Wiktionary template can be used to link to the Wiktionary entry (when one exists), but the only links in the entries are to articles. That is why I removed the Wiktionary link from the entry, not because it made me "feel better". Actually, I see that we have the article Queue, although it is currently at RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You are correct, but often dab pages include a short sentence explaining the primary use of the subject so it isn't completely out of line to have had a more direct link. It is because of the Rfd that we were adding that information. That being said I have no problem with using the box on the side for it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Really, Auntof6, you get so compulsive about this sometimes. You think I don't understand the purpose of a disambiguation page? Really? My purpose was exactly what DJSasso said above. The sentence was appropriate, bordering on necessary; the direct link was a courtesy. You didn't like the courtesy, because it doesn't fit into your concept of the rules. Fine. It's gone now. But really, don't treat me like a newbie. And consider that others may have just slightly different ways of interpreting standard practices. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Jason Dude Smith

Hello I'm Jason Smith. My page Jason Dude Smith is really notable and it's all trueful. Please remove the deletion tag and help me improve my page. — This unsigned comment was added by Jason Dude Smith (talk • changes) at 16:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC).

@Jason Dude Smith: There are a lot of problems I see here. Briefly,

1. Reliable sources. All article-space pages must be supported by reliable sources. There are exactly zero reliable sources in this article. So unless you can support that page with reliable sources, it will be deleted. This is especially true because of ...
2. Conflict of interest. There is a presumption that someone writing about oneself is not going to be neutral, and neutral point of view is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It is almost never appropriate to write or even edit an article about oneself (other than to do things like correct typos). Additionally ...
3. Our biography of living persons policy requires us to be especially strict about the preceding two points when dealing with articles about living persons. This is for the project's protection and also yours, for reasons which I hope are obvious: If we allow positive comments to be here unsourced, we must allow negative ones as well, and then we run the risk of unsourced attacks damaging your good name (and ours). And finally, there is the question you brought up:
4. Notability. I found exactly zero hits on Google, other than the discussions on this wiki. That, of course, is not definitive proof that you are not notable. But it does create a certain presumption of non-notability that you will need to overcome by providing reliable sources.

If you overcome points 1, 3 and 4, and in doing so incorporate reliable sources that are criticisms of your work, you might—let me repeat might—be able to overcome point #2. That having been said ...

Even I am not allowed to remove the RfD template now: Once a page has gone to RfD, the process must run its course. And the fact that you have tried to impede that process is taken by most people as an act of bad faith, meaning that any response you make in your own support is likely to be taken with a grain of salt, at best.

The only place where you can respond to me right now is on your own talk page, because you are blocked for a week. I'll watch that page in case you have something to say. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

I put a post on WP:Simple talk about a new WikiProject myself and a few others are developing. Could I request that you share your opinion on the new WikiProject? here. Thanks, _{Adotchar| reply here} 01:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Quartiere Bocconi University (district of Milan)

Hi. Steven. You were quite right to restore this tag. I have gone even further and redirected the page. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two articles by socks of globally blocked user "Alec Smithson" for more information. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Contranym moved to SEWikt..

Hello StevenJ81, I have created the page contranym at Simple English Wiktionary, and deleted it here. In the deletion discussion ,you sid that there would be material for an "encyclopedic" article, beyond a word definition. Therefore feel free to re-create the page, if you think you have such material. --Eptalon (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Thanks. Probably won't be my priority just now. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

N.B.

I carelessly put more comment on your Archive #1 about the limitations of language. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'll rearrange it so it appears here. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm curious about is: What motivated you (all this time later) to add the new comments? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's not all this time later! I live with this all the time as I interact and sometimes teach people in non-formal settings -- of which this is one. But I wanted to dent the idea that simplicity of language can always do justice to the subject-matter by saying, actually, no it can't in many cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL! I quite agree (if that wasn't clear before). That's why I tend to think of this in terms of whether this project aspires to be World Book or Britannica, if you will. I'm inclined to think that simplicity of language can always usually do justice to subject matter at the World Book level of detail/abstraction. I'm not a bit convinced that it can even usually do justice at the Britannica/textbook level. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:StevenJ81/User BSD

Mind if I use this on my userpage? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont, I would be honored. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)