User talk:Etamni

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Etamni.

Archives
Archive

Hello, Etamni, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes.

You may want to begin by reading these pages:

• Help
• Rules
• Links to useful pages
• How to write Simple English pages
• How to copy from another Wikipedia

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested pages or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes).

If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.

Good luck and happy changing! Etamni (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above was a self-welcome -- I am an active editor on en.Wikipedia. To talk to me, just post a message on my talk-page below. If the issue is especially urgent, feel free to use e-mail or post a message on my talk-page at en-wiki. Etamni (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your email regarding your list, I have a few suggestions:

1. I think the more important aspect at the top is explaining why this list is here on English. Presumably, if someone's using your list, they know what FA's are. So, maybe make that right hand box stretch the width of the page and put the FA explanation below it? Or cut the FA explanation down and put it with the explanations from the right box.
2. This might require some research/effect, but maybe make a list near the top of what articles from the En list we have as good or very good articles.

Other than that, I think it's a good idea. You might be interested in this Featured February idea I came up with a couple of years ago that got moved into another user's space. Only (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Yeah, I saw that already, along with the FA list from the same time-period that you have in your pages. That was why I asked your opinion on this first, rather than anyone else! I had (for several weeks) been quietly looking for a report of some kind (for example, within the Special pages) that would allow me to generate a list of FAs and GAs from EnWiki that didn't have matching article titles from Simple. When I saw those pages within your userspace, I realized I didn't need a report, I just needed a list of links, and those that are missing would be red. Also, based on the size of the list, I realize now that I don't need the GAs -- at least not yet.

As for your second point, I'm still thinking this through. The main list needs to be able to be updated by copy and paste -- too many entries to make manual adjustments. This means an automated way of identifying articles that are on both lists. I think there might be a way of doing that with the template I brought over, but it needs further research and thought. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(For anyone reading this who isn't sure what the discussion is about, you can start on my user page in the section that mentions "low hanging fruit" -- all will become clear! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thinking making the list of which ones are GAs/VGAs here would be that hard manually since we only have a few dozen of each. Only (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Only:, I've added a pair of "collapse" boxes which transclude the lists of good and very good articles. They are not matched up to their entries on the EnWiki featured articles, but the information is readily available. I'll have less time over the next few days to work on this, but I think there is a way to highlight them with an alternate color, or underline, or something, and to do it in a way that will update automatically -- I really want as few manual updates as possible. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting discussion. I have a couple of comments:
1. We do actually have articles on some of the red-linked items. This happens because editors fail to do the redirects properly. See Stephen of England, which we have. Its parent Stephen, King of England, shows redlink on Only's list because our wiki does not have that title as a redirect.
2. Many of their FAs are good articles indeed, but on trivial subjects. They would not do our wiki as much good as filling out the articles on the "all wikis should have" lists, because those articles are more likely to be searched by readers.
All the same, it is an interesting idea, which might lead to a shortlist of options for editors to think about. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, on my userpage, I mention the fact that the existence of a redlink does not mean we haven't covered a subject here in an article with a different name. This is intended to be just one tool that might help get some quality content copied over from EnWiki. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were overdue for this, so here you go! Feel free to put this in a more permanent place on your user page, and update as you go. There's even a template, {{service awards}}, that will automatically assign you the appropriate level if you give it your start date and update your edit count now and then. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well this is fun! Thanks Auntof6! I'm assuming this is just edit count and time on Simple -- the numbers are a little bit higher if EnWiki service is counted... :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I go by time on each Wikipedia separately, but YMMV. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks for your involvement in the Big Reference Weekend 2016, every edit helps. Peterdownunder (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Etamni, I saw your discussion with Only further up the page and thought I'd let you know that we'd like to run Featured February in March, this year. For more information see Wikipedia:Featured February, and the talk page there. :) --Yottie ^=talk= 10:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yottie: Did you see the "low hanging fruit" section of my userpage? Is having a "featured February" event during March even allowed? :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Etamni, a couple of years ago I created a template for situations like you discovered the other day: child information warning --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to delete the inappropriate column of data on "population per senator" which is irrelevant and of no more value than population per monarch or population per Prince. MacDonald-Ross says data may not be deleted without discussion, but I don't know where to discuss. Also I don't know what NPOV or Twinkle is. The irrelevant data was added by someone claiming "the U.S. is corrupt because each state has two senators" which is erroneously false, and added the column of population divided by two, which is irrelevant and duplicitous. The comment was successfully removed, but MacDonald-ross restored the irrelevant data. LearnCivics (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LearnCivics and Macdonald-ross:. I'll take a closer look at the list over the weekend -- it looks like I'll have some time to work on various projects here over the next few days. For those of us who live here, the fact that each state has two US Senators is pretty basic info; those who are not from the US, however, are less familiar with our form of government, and a column like this in this particular table or list may be encyclopedic. (The troll's claim that this somehow makes the US corrupt is just that: trolling. The claim may be disregarded and deleted.) FYI, Twinkle is a tool for fighting vandalism; it has scripts to automate certain tasks. The term NPOV is a reference to Wikipedia's policy that articles and other content (like this list) must maintain a "Neutral Point of View," which policy can be read by clicking here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove notices from your talk page instead use some bot to archive them automatically. ThanksNepali keto62 ^{Let's talk} 09:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali keto62, no, talkback notices may be removed as soon as their contents are noted. Also, it is not necessary to place a talkback notice when you ping someone -- both will generate the same alert. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK OKNepali keto62 ^{Let's talk} 09:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yesterday you mailed me regarding my edit in the Harry Potter (character)page, I want to know the exact steps for replacing the content of a dead link with a valid one.

Pls help me in this

Kindly reply to this mail id : (deleted e-mail) —This unsigned comment was added by AMRajaNanthini (talk • changes) 12:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@AMRajaNanthini: The text of an article states that a particular website says something, and gives that website as the source. If the website is no longer active, or the article is now gone, it is a dead link. We don't remove the link just because it is dead. This is because it shows that the claim did have a source, even if the source is no longer available. It is also possible that someone will locate an archived version of the website in the future. As for the link you added, it was spam. It was a site with shopping carts, and no commentary was evident about the subject of the article or the point being made in the paragraph where you added it. That type of citation is very rarely useful on Wikipedia. Please note that this does not mean that every citation to a website with shopping carts is a spam link. A few of them can be useful. But I looked at the site you added in the citation and could find nothing relevant to the article. There is a guideline about spam you can read by clicking here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let new users show the character of their edits before welcoming them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross: The welcome templates have the links the new users need in order to learn how to properly edit. As far as I am concerned, a single edit that is good or at least appears to be a good-faith effort is sufficient to show they want to help the encyclopedia, and they should be shown the tools that will help them do so. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your message. I undid that edit because I thought it was vandalism. --EDwiki (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwiki: No worries. Many people here have made that mistake from time to time. We allow people to use sandboxes to make test edits, that way they don't make them in articles. Test edits allow new editors to learn how to use the wiki interface. Normally, we only issue warnings if the test edits are done in a way that is intended to be disruptive. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Etamni. Thanks for improving this article. (I improved it a little more myself.) I just wanted to remind you (or tell you, if you didn't know) that when you mention a living person's religion in an article, there must be a reference to show that the person has publicly identified as a member of that religion. This needs to be done even if it's only mentioned in an infobox, as the infobox you added did. I have removed the reference. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: You are correct of course. At the time I edited the article, I was just trying to prevent it from being tagged with a QD -- it really didn't look like much when I found it. I recalled seeing a reference in the EnWiki version that supported the statement regarding her religion. I've gone back to EnWiki, found the reference, verified it is still current, and added it to our article. Indeed, there are a number of good references in the EnWiki version that can be used to improve our version, but I'm out of time this morning. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  13:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy one-year Wikiversary, and thanks for your work here! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6:, Thanks :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits at iPhone! The thing is though, I do reckon we need to start updating the article and adding more of the iPhone 7 though; the timeline of iPhones is outdated and there is currently no description of the iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus. I also noticed there still isn't any article on the iPhone 7. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 07:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyxp2000: I have to be careful in editing in this area. It's one thing to fix grammar or an obvious typo (like removing the "and" that was at the end of a sentence, or noting that two different editors increased the ordinal number of the release, and fixing that), but some edits could be considered COI for me. Please see the userboxes on my user page for explanation. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This user works and edits Wikipedia during odd or unexpected or inconsistent times of the day". Is this what you mean? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to me though. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyxp2000: :P Go three or four userboxes lower to get the right ones (there are actually two of them). While I think I could probably write an unbiased article on something I'm paid to support, our rules are designed to avoid even the appearance of bias. For that reason, I have to be extra careful in this area. Having said that, I will revert clear vandalism on any article, even if I have a COI in regard to the subject, and I might correct obvious factual errors or non-encyclopedic content as long as the matter isn't likely to be debated by anyone other than a vandal or troll. For example, if someone wrote that there is an iPhone version with a thirty-inch screen, this would be clear vandalism, but I would leave discussions about the actual performance of the phone, or any controversies, to those who don't have a COI. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you must have COI to Apple stuffs. Is this what you mean? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 08:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't write about the wireless phone industry. This includes specific cell phones. Some of the companies that make cell phones are mega-corporations, and I don't consider their other products to be off limits. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all my edits have been reverted. Look here. Ironically, I have no such problems with our standard Wikipedia, where my edits are sometimes more serious. 85.193.195.140 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were grammatically correct. I'm sorry someone didn't realize this. The invitation stands. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My internet issues continue. Every time I visit certain pages on the web, including Wikipedia, my hard drive starts churning and my firewall gives me hundreds of alerts. Antivirus is up to date. If you need me for any reason, email option is active. Etamni-m (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put back nonsense about me that was posted by an obvious troll? 79.19.126.252 (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at your edit history. I would suggest using the sandbox for test edits. Meanwhile, if you disagree with the report, you can add a comment afterward, but don't delete the existing report. Admins will look at your edit history, not just the report. If some of the edits from your IP were not made by you, perhaps you should register an account that you will be solely responsible for. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]