Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Editor review)


Proposing simplification deskEdit

I think this wiki would benefit from having a dedicated page where people can ask for help with making things simpler. As being simple is the entire reason it exists. I think it should be separate from Simple talk because some editors might not want to be burdened with constant messages on this page that they might not care about. And there are also admins' talk pages that get bombarded with questions like this. This could be a separate page in Wikipedia namespace, or it could be a part of User:Thesixthstaff/WikiProject Simplification. Alternatively, we could just use Simple talk, but I want to get a sense if others are ok with constant questions about minor things here. Thanks, Lights and freedom (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

A benefit is that people would not have to respond right away. They could respond whenever they got time. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think making it a part of WikiProject Simplification might be a good idea but using Simple talk isn't too bad - simplification requests aren't taking up too much space here. --Ferien (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
We have a tag to put on relevant articles. Historically this project has not supported creating additioanl noticeboards, and I don't think something like this is necessary. Organizing drives to simplify tagged articles, however, is very much something that could be productive. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
It's more so we can discuss what would be simpler. Someone might think they're simplifying, but they're actually replacing longer words with more complicated phrasal verbs, for example. Or maybe there are situations when the phrasal verbs would be easier. There are a few editors here who have worked with English-language learners and have professional knowledge of what is more easily understood, but many of us don't have that experience. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see, so you're talkinga bout whether it would be better to say "from nose to rear end" or "from nose to anus" when talking about snout-vent length (a way to say how big an amphibian or reptile is without involving its tail or big hind legs). Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, I tried something similar about ten years ago. I see the userbox I created for it is being used here. I'm happy to see the idea for such a project still around. Kansan (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: "Read end" wouldn't be a good term because:
  • It's slang.
  • It's mostly used in humans, not animals.
  • When used for humans, it means the buttocks rather than the anus.
I know it's the term used in Snout-vent length, but we should probably change that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about categories related to chemicalsEdit

This may not be the most interesting topic, but it's important so that people can easily find articles. We currently have Category:Chemicals and Category:Chemical compounds, and we should clearly define what belongs in each. For example, "glue", "petroleum", and "antifreeze" are not specific chemical compounds, so where do they belong? There are also some categories that are classes of chemical compounds, such as Category:Hydrocarbons. This contains specific compounds/molecules like methane, but also other things like gasoline. Then there are the large number of biological molecules, mainly in four groups: Category:Lipids, Category:Proteins (and their component amino acids), Category:Carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. Enwiki has en:Category:Biomolecules for those. Hemoglobin is an example of a protein that's a compound, but an article like protein folding is not a chemical compound itself though it relates to them. Another note is Category:Polymers should be considered, both for the biological and artificial polymers. Finally, there are grounds of chemicals by purpose/effect, such as Category:Pigments and Category:Poisons, which should be under a consistent supercategory. This is all just to give you an idea of what the issues are.

So together, let's try to clearly define all of these. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not a chemist, so I may have a biased opinion: Pretty much everything is a chemical, now if the thing is made of molecules of two or more substances, these are chemical compounds: Examples are nitric acid or sulfuric acid, both widely used. As to antifreeze: this is likely a class of substances, and might be worth a category. Note that certain fish also make antifreeze, the Sea wolves (en). So, there might be other classifications.--Eptalon (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Would it be beneficial to have a new category for "Biomolecules"? Lights and freedom (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Chemical products is a possibility. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
If you find a suitable parent, and get at least three of them, then why not? Eptalon (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I need help with images!Edit

Hello there, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and all, and when I added in an image, it was far away from the header I wanted it to be in. Does anyone know how to align them? DawnTheFirst (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@DawnTheFirst: I should be able to help you with that. Can you give an example? Maybe add the image and save the page, then reply here and point to the problem? -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright, here is an example:


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.   Pharetra convallis posuere morbi leo urna. Dignissim diam quis enim lobortis. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus. Molestie ac feugiat sed lectus vestibulum mattis ullamcorper. Consequat mauris nunc congue nisi vitae suscipit. Quis enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum. Egestas tellus rutrum tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt. Condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque habitant.
As you can see, it kind of takes a big chunk of of the text space, and I want it aligned right. DawnTheFirst (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@DawnTheFirst: This will be easier if we code it the way it would be on a page, without the indentation used on a talk page. I created User:Auntof6/sandbox3 for this, so go there and see a couple of examples that might be what you're looking for. Feel free to add sections if you want me to look at other alternatives.
A couple of other notes:
  • Usually there should be a caption with an image. I'll demonstrate how to do that on the sandbox page.
  • Usually the file would be coded on a separate line from the text and/or headings around it. I'll demonstrate that on the sandbox page as well.
Hope this helps. Let me know if these aren't what you need. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@DawnTheFirst: Did this help at all? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes it did, many thanks! DawnTheFirst (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Wanted PagesEdit

... is generally useless for our purposes at least, because it is entirely dominated by place-names. Most of these would never be important to us. We still haven't got good pages on all capital cities! London is still only so-so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: We don't seem to have Wikipedia:List of Wanted Pages, or even Wikipedia:List of wanted pages. Do you mean Wikipedia:Requested pages, or maybe Special:WantedPages? -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at Special:WantedPages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

History of the AmericasEdit

We don't seem to have pages on the American wars of independence, including the topic of European powers in South America and Central America. Even our page on the Philippines doesn't deal properly with its history with the U.S. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I just wrote a history section for Philippines, but it could still use more work from more hands. All my sources are of American origin. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Becoming my home wikiEdit

I just wanted to say thanks to all the contributors here at Simple Wiki. I have made the decision to migrate from enwiki to Simple Wiki. So this is now my home wiki. Thank you all! SoyokoAnis - talk 12:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

En.wiki's too quick for me to actively revert vandalism there, so I help out here. Derpdart56 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
ENWiki is a great wiki nonetheless, but for some editors it is very complicated and everywhere. Simple Wiki even if its not the point is a very calm wiki. You can edit simply without the worry of your a new article you made get deleted a few DAYS later. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
yeah. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I often write an article on one wiki and then improve its counterpart on the other one! Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Spam of US citiesEdit

Hello, I was looking through Short pages in the Special pages category, and I saw a whole lot of US city articles with this text: Blank (the city) is a city in Blank (the state) in the United States. There are more than 50 of these. Can someone help me filter through these and determine what cities need a page and which ones don't? Midknight of the Abyss (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Midknight1342 May it be that all these cities warrant a page. There's a lot of them but I'm sure with the help of other simpledians, you can edit them without removing them. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe a good chunk of those were from unauthorized bot edits by a now blocked user known as User:Gay Yong Hernandez under an IP. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Derpdart56: That doesn't mean they should be deleted, though, in case anyone was thinking that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Midknight1342: If they are real cities, then they all can have a page. We definitely prefer to have more information, but cities, towns, and similar populated places are considered notable just because they exist. See en:WP:GEOLAND for the guideline. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Yep. We have someone who, every week or so, makes a bunch of stubs about Vermont towns. I get pinged in the IRC feed every time. It's not very fun, but they are notable (and there's so many of them). Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion timestampEdit

Does 7 days really need to be how long it is until a deletion consensus is decided? A lot of discussions barely get any attention. Would 5 days be a better timestamp? SoyokoAnis - talk 16:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

A lack of attention would warrant a longer discussion time. However, considering current admin activity, the real discussion time seems far longer than 7 days. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Vector 2022 skin as the default in two weeks?Edit

 
The slides for our presentation at Wikimania 2022

Hello. I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team. In two weeks, we would like to make the Vector 2022 skin the default on this wiki.

We have been working on it for the past three years. So far, it has been the default on more than 30 wikis, including sister projects, all accounting for more than 1 billion pageviews per month. On average 87% of active logged-in users of those wikis use Vector 2022.

It would become the default for all logged-out users, and also all logged-in users who currently use Vector legacy. Logged-in users can at any time switch to any other skins. No changes are expected for users of these skins.

About the skinEdit

[Why is a change necessary] The current default skin meets the needs of the readers and editors as these were 13 years ago. Since then, new users have begun using Wikimedia projects. The old Vector doesn't meet their needs.

[Objective] The objective for the new skin is to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. It draws inspiration from previous requests, the Community Wishlist Surveys, and gadgets and scripts. The work helped our code follow the standards and improve all other skins. We reduced PHP code in Wikimedia deployed skins by 75%. The project has also focused on making it easier to support gadgets and use APIs.

[Changes and test results] The skin introduces a series of changes that improve readability and usability. The new skin does not remove any functionality currently available on the Vector skin.

  • The sticky header makes it easier to find tools that editors use often. It decreases scrolling to the top of the page by 16%.
  • The new table of contents makes it easier to navigate to different sections. Readers and editors jumped to different sections of the page 50% more than with the old table of contents. It also looks a bit different on talk pages.
  • The new search bar is easier to find and makes it easier to find the correct search result from the list. This increased the amount of searches started by 30% on the wikis we tested on.
  • The skin does not negatively affect pageviews, edit rates, or account creation. There is evidence of increases in pageviews and account creation across partner communities.

[Try it out] Try out the new skin by going to the appearance tab in your preferences and selecting Vector 2022 from the list of skins.

  • I don't know what the icons mean. At least include words.Kdammers (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How can editors change and customize this skin?Edit

It's possible to configure and personalize our changes. We support volunteers who create new gadgets and user scripts. Check out our repository for a list of currently available customizations, or add your own.

Our planEdit

If no large concerns are raised, we plan on deploying in the week of October 3, 2022. If your community would like to request more time to discuss the changes, hit the button and write to us. We can adjust the calendar.

Also, if you'd like ask our team anything, if you have questions, concerns, or additional thoughts, please ping me here or write on the talk page of the project. We will also gladly answer! See our FAQ. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Discussion
I haven't been active lately and didn't intend to edit for at least a while, I have been so busy, but I came across this change and I wanted to confirm again if there is an option to keep the current vector skin if the new one does come in? --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @SGrabarczuk (WMF) for the above question. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
You can find it in the Appearance tab in Preferences/My Settings. Here's a link to it. Explodicator7331 (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes @Tsugaru, you can keep the current Vector skin. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting periodEdit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languagesPlease help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2022 Board of Trustees election process. Your participation helps seat the trustees the community seeks on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

These are the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election:

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Board will complete their review of the most voted candidates, including conducting background checks. The Board plans to appoint new trustees at their meeting in December.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee.

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox settlement vs. custom infoboxes for states in a countryEdit

A lot of pages are currently using a custom infobox for states (or provinces, prefectures, departments, etc...) within a country. For example, Fukushima Prefecture uses Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan, Brandenburg uses Template:Infobox German state, Ontario uses Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, and so on. These templates are usually a wrapper for Template:Infobox settlement. However, others use Infobox settlement directly, such as Nuevo León, Acre (state), and Chubut. Some don't use any version of Infobox settlement at all (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes for example).

Many pages for states are currently missing a template entirely (such as Shiga Prefecture), and there are still more which don't exist here and need to be created or simplified from ENWiki. So, when adding an infobox to pages like these, should we use the appropriate country's template where possible (i.e Infobox Prefecture Japan for Shiga Prefecture), or use Infobox settlement directly? And for countries which seem to use a mix of the two, should we standardize it so the articles for every state in a country use the same template? Tymewalk (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know that there's any rule about that. The advantage of using the more-specific templates (including the wrapper templates) is that many things are automatically specified and other things are easier to specify. The disadvantage is that we have to maintain templates that could be replaced by the base settlement infobox. Enwiki seems to have fewer templates that call the settlement infobox, although they have some that we don't.
Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes uses the geobox template, which should be replaced with an appropriate infobox template. I was working on replacing it when a real life situation intervened. I plan to get back to it, but of course anyone else who would like to do that replacement is also welcome to. I've just been replacing it with the infobox used on enwiki, then addressing any issues caused by the replacement. Once all uses of the geobox template have been replaced, we can eliminate it as was done on enwiki. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sudden lack of editorsEdit

I've noticed that in the past few months a lot of the major simplewiki editors (eg. BRPEver, PDL, TDKR, MrMeAndMrMe) all have became much less active or quit (in TDKRs case, he will retire in a few months, and in PDLs case he was indefinitely blocked). This worries me, is there a cause? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 17:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint: Summer holidays? Normal attrition? Maybe if you ping them here they will respond for themselves. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I may also become more and more inactive over the next months, but I won't be gone, I still look at the Wikipedia pages and I am up to date mostly with what is going on, you just won't see me editing as much if I am unable. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 00:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I am always around checking things and can easily be reached via email or in IRC. I have been busy IRL and will be for next 2-3 months. I am expecting to be more active from January.--BRP ever 02:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
We do have some big holes in our armoury. The biggest one I've found recently is our poor coverage of the struggle between the brand-new USA with the Spanish crown. This raged from the Philippines to Central America and the early U.S.A. All the pages dealing with the early USA need looking at.
Also, we can't be happy with our accounts of Eastern Europe, although Poland has had a lot of attention over the past few years.
I would dearly love to see less attention paid to worthless trashy individuals, and more attention to topics which can educate the next generation. Dream on... Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: I do think that while we do not really have a lack of editors and this is not an extremely important issue, I do think editor retention is important if we want to improve and create more articles, and I think the comment describing editors as worthless and trashy is unnecessary. --Ferien (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Of course, I did not describes the editors as worthless and trashy!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, apologies for misreading your comment. --Ferien (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: Probably each of us has topics we think too much attention is paid to and other topics we think deserve more attention. I certainly do, although I'm not going to specify because I don't want to discourage article creation in general. I just keep reminding myself that everyone here is a volunteer and works on things that they're interested in (excluding people who aren't here to help build the wiki, of course). -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross Who are some worthless trashy individuals? That's kind of rude. Nobody is worthless and all contributions matter. SoyokoAnis - talk 12:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I do need to write more simply. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lallint: To me, it feels like the community has grown quite a bit over the past year or so. Perhaps people are just becoming more busy. I don't think it's something to worry about a lot. People edit when they have time... Some people might be really active at some times and inactive at other times. There are certainly more people actively editing here than when I started editing a couple of years ago. --Ferien (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Move request for KharkivEdit

Frankly IDK why the page on Kharkiv was moved "Kharkov" in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. It should be moved back. Can someone help with this? Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firestar464 Looks like Eptalon has moved the page. Thanks for bringing this to attention! — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 12:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Firestar464 and @Fehufanga, just take a note, @Stefsera has changed the name to Kharkov in 2015 citing the reason as Traditional name of this city. DMK-C5 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Patrolling new pagesEdit

Hey all, new page patrol is one of the areas where I think the project will benefit with more participation. The problem, however, is that we have no clear set of criteria/guidelines that can help us know which page to mark patrolled. I think that is one of the many reasons why people hesitate to mark the yellow pages that appear on the new page list as patrolled. This makes things really hard as it is time-consuming to distinguish between the pages that have already been reviewed by experienced editors and the ones that needs to be reviewed.

New pages are not perfect, and we can't expect new page patrollers to deal with all the issues on the page. Pages are usually made better by the participation of multiple interested users. So, page being marked as patrolled doesn't mean it is a good page. It just means that it meets the basic requirements for being in an encyclopedia.

Here is what I think can be the basic criteria to mark a page as patrolled:

  1. The title of the page should be correct (per WP:MOS)
  2. The content of the page should be wikified to a certain extent. This includes link to other pages, bold and italics text where needed, infobox, pictures etc.
  3. The content of the page should be simplified to certain extent.
  4. There should not be significant grammar errors on the page. It should make sense.
  5. There should at least be one reference for verifiability unless the subject is very common like eg. 'Apple'.
  6. The subject of the page should meet the notability requirement.
  7. References and other websites should be properly formatted. Appropriate sections should be added if there are those, and there isn't a dedicated section for them yet.
  8. The page should be properly categorised and tagged. This doesn't mean one can just bomb a page with tags. This is only for the necessary tags like merge and stub tags which generally encourage editing.

If you have any suggestion regarding this, please feel free to write it down. I am just listing what I think could potentially improve our process and make things easier. There might be other better ways to do this, or maybe our current way of doing things is fine. I just thought it might be constructive discussing this. Thanks--BRP ever 14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

There is also User:Auntof6/Things I would like Wikipedia editors to know#How to patrol, perhaps a mix between your and their ideas would be good to make a guideline or policy. Will expand on my opinion later. --Ferien (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 on this list and everything on Auntof6's list as the basic criteria to patrol a page. I don't think 6 should be included as I feel patrols should be quick checks, checking something meets the notability requirement takes a relatively long time compared to everything else. --Ferien (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I just added an item to my page linked by Ferien. That item is to make sure the page is linked in Wikidata if possible.
As for being properly categorised, that could be a guideline by itself. I tend to look at that by accounting for all the typical question words, as applicable: who, what, when, where, why, how. Not all of those are applicable to every kind of topic, and some of them apply differently or in multiple ways to some topics, but I think it's a good starting place. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Jackie Kennedy issuesEdit

There are still a few grammatical issues with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis which I mentioned at the bottom of the talk page. TDKR Chicago 101 and Gotanda, as well as anyone else, may want to examine them. I'm not sure of the correct solution for these. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits Lights and freedom. They help. I don't think the article should have been promoted in the state it was with many very basic errors. --Gotanda (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The more I look, the more I find. There are more issues on the Talk page. --Gotanda (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
There's more. The settlement with Christina Onasis is incorrect according to the NYT ref. That's the sixth error I've found quoting incorrectly, refs not mentioning the information they cited for, or just wrong. And, I haven't even check most of them. The problems with the section on children are also not very good. At this point, considering a request for demotion. --Gotanda (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
More new issues on teh Talk page. --Gotanda (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Allowing Wikitext editors to preview changes in realtimeEdit

Community Tech has introduced a new beta feature. It allows editors to preview their changes side by side when writing in wikitext. The goal is to make it easier to review changes while editing. This was the wish number four of the Community Wishlist Survey 2021.

What does this feature change?

In the 2010 wikitext editor toolbar, a new button appears with the label “Preview”. The button enables a side by side comparison showing what the published content would look like. You can see an illustrative example on the screenshot.

We would like to check if the editing experience improves. If it does, we will make this change available for everyone by default.

What do I need to do?

If you want to try out our feature, make sure the New Wikitext mode beta feature is DISABLED. Feel free to provide feedback about the impact this new feature has on your editing experience.

See also: the original wishthe project page.

Thank you! ––– STei (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Enquiry on Patroller rightsEdit

Hi, I would like to get the patroller flag on my account. I just wanted to know how much approx. pages do I need to create at least. DMK-C5 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@DMK-C5: There is no set number. That right is given to trusted users who have 1) done a reasonable amount of good vandalism fighting and 2) shown that the articles they create do not need to be patrolled. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I see. Since I have the eligibility in clause 1, I will focus more on clause 2. DMK-C5 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Total ErasureEdit

I created an article a few days ago. It was challenged. I responded this morning, explaining why the article "Belmont 112" should not be a speedy delete. Less than six hours later, the article is gone. It is not even in my list of contributions. I did not get a response to my explanation as to why it should not be deleted.

I think this is wrong for two reasons. First, in this specific case, an article was totally erased without any trace far less than a working day after a wait explanation was posted. And this was done without my being given any notification of counterarguments or even that there would actually be a removal. Second, in general, I think it is a bad practice to have an algorithm that totally erases any trace of a removed article from the creator's contributions list (Maybe the article exists somewhere, but it is well hidden, since it doesn't come up in a search). Kdammers (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kdammers: To address your last point first, you can see pages you created that have been deleted. Click on "My changes" at the top of any page. On that screen, click on the "deleted user contributions" link near the top.
As for the deletion itself, you can ask for it to be reviewed at WP:Deletion review. I think you have a good case to have it restored. MathXplore placed the quick delete request because the text was the same as the enwiki article, and Macdonald-ross deleted it. However, it's okay for articles here to be the same as enwiki as long as 1) the language is simple enough and 2) attribution is given. Very little needed to be done to simplify the language, and it would be an easy matter to give attribution. (I know you intended to post it here instead of on enwiki, but since it was on enwiki first you still need to give attribution.)
Hope this helps. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Auntof6 and Kdammers: You will actually have to press on "logs" where you will be able to see the log of your page creations. The "deleted user contributions" link only appears for administrators. --Ferien (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ferien: Oops, thanks for the clarification. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Auntof6 According to en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, it's not necessary to attribute if you're copying only your own text. Unless there's a different rule on simplewiki, Kdammers would not have to attribute. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lights and freedom: Looks like you're right. Thanks for the note. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In line with this, I've restored the article. Also noting that QDs do not go through deletion review; contested QDs (with valid reason) cannot be actioned as QDs are exclusively for non-controversial deletions. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Then maybe we need to change the verbiage on the wait template which says "Note that this request is not a guarantee, and the page may still be deleted if it meets the quick deletion criteria, or if an explanation is not provided very soon." -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the verbiage is fine. Contested QDs without a valid reason ("I think my cat is notable!") can still be QD'd, so it's not a guarantee for those cases.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I want to thank every-one who quickly chimed in to clarify things here and to restore the page. I do still have one question, though. Where do I find "logs"? Kdammers (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@Kdammers: Special:Log/Kdammers. --Ferien (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)