User talk:Auntof6

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

erasing top part

The top part of Category:Celine Dion songs was erased; it said the category gave out information about songs by that singer. Why was it erased? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Categories don't need a description if the description just repeats information that is given by the category name. The category name already says that it's for Celine Dion songs, and the description (the "top part") didn't say any more than that. Besides that, the description said that the category had information about Celine Dion songs, but that isn't true: categories don't have information about the things they contain, and they don't list them, they just contain them.
By the way, when you refer to a category like this, you need to put a colon between the opening brackets and the word "Category". If you don't, then the page you edit gets put into the category and the category name doesn't display on the page. Look at the change I made to your post to see exactly what I mean. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline QDs

Hi Auntof6,

I saw that you declined my latest request for qd on Fred McLafferty. You are the admin so that is your role. I tend to be quite strict on direct copy-pastes from EnWP that have not been simplified. I think that if people want the complex content, they know where to find it. EnWP does not have any discoverability problem. Complex content here can be a problem though. If young readers or language learners come here and think that what they are reading is simple, but still find it very difficult, that can be demotivating. So, I placed the complex tag there. Copy-pasting is always faster than simplifying, so an imbalance can build up.

Also, I wonder what your views are on copying and pasting without attribution? Sure, admins or other editors may add the attribution later, but that just offloads work onto them/us. QD 12 Obviously breaking copyright law says, "This includes copying from other Wikipedias without proper attribution." Maybe I should have tagged A3 and G12 would you have accepted G12?

Thanks for your time and all your efforts.

--Gotanda (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The article conforms to the requirements for copying text licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0; see the talk page's attribution note. Vermont (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry! My bad. Must have mixed it up with another one. Please accept my apology for taking up your time. --Gotanda (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping For better or for worse, we allow complex content here if the complex terms are linked. Most of the complex terms were linked in that article, and it was not very long, so I decided to allow it. It is better to simplify, but that can be difficult with technical topics. I agree that complex content here can be a problem, but I don't think that will significantly improve as long as we allow anyone to create articles here. Most people, including some of our long-term editors, don't simplify the language nearly enough, IMO. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Aunt. I tried adding this to Talk:Exotic pet and found it not working. I tried playing around with it for a while and couldn't get it right. (What was missing was the link to the discussion, even in the presence of the |year= parameter.) For the time being I subst-ed it and fixed the talk page manually. I'll see if I have time to get back to it later, but you may wish to have a look, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed it for you, and fixed the result which was no consensus which is technically different than keep. You were missing the page param. -DJSasso (talk)
TY. I thought that the page parameter was allowed to default, but OK. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


You have repeatedly reverted me on a spambot's userpage, so I have to assume you haven't read or don't know where to find this information but OtillaLindsey1 is a globally locked spambot: Template:Tq so please explain how a deletion rationale with {{delete|spam or spambot}} is not a valid rationale? Spambots are subject to global policy. They are not allowed on any wikimedia project and it is a valid tag anywhere. And I'll also note in case it's not abundantly obvious that they are a spambot, they created this dumpster fire. It's important to remove content created by spambots because a.) they are prohibited by Wikimedia and b.) they parse userpages exactly like that to make seemingly innocuous edits to slip past filters and continue to spam. You said I haven't given a valid deletion reason several times today, so please explain what I need to write in a deletion tag that would be appropriate, I can do haikus, sonnets or free verse. Praxidicae (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To be fair we don't typically delete user pages of indefinitely blocked users unless the userpage itself was spam irregardless of if they are a spambot or not. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
My issue is more "no valid reason given" when I explained it pretty clearly and explicitly (it's a spambot.) Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes and that isn't a valid reason to delete a userpage as I just explained. Unless the page was spam itself. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, have fun with your spambots, I guess. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I am just confused why blocked spambots need non spam userpages deleted? If the bots are blocked there is nothing they can do anyway? -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See point B in her initial comment. Vermont (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Right but once blocked that would no longer be an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping I'm not saying the pages shouldn't be deleted. To use quick deletion, however, the page must fit one of the defined QD options. "Spambot" isn't one of those. If the page doesn't exactly fit one of the defined QD criteria, the usual process is to use RFD. If you don't want to do that, you can try asking at the admins' noticeboard, but you might be asked to use RFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

changes needed at Template:Uw-error3

Can someone please change the protection from full-protection to semi-protection on Template:Uw-error3 so that autoconfirmed users, not just admins, can add needed changes to the wording on the page? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ping Changes in that wording should be discussed first, so I think it can stay fully protected. What change is needed? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Starting category African American women

Should I refrain from adding any new women categories while the request for deletion of Categories for women by occupation is in process? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ping I would refrain from adding any new categories for women by occupation until the RfD is closed. The issue with women by ethnicity is different, but I don't see a reason for separating the genders there, either. Is there a particular reason you see for separating them, other than because we can?
I look at it this way: if there's a valid reason in real life to see women as different for a reason related to the issue, it might be reasonable to categorize them separately. For example, when the issue is sports, women often compete separately from men, and their events are often different (for example, only women do the balance beam in gymnastics) or modifed (for example, women's tennis matches have fewer sets than men's) from those that men compete in. If it's something where we shouldn't or don't separate the genders in real life, then we probably don't need separate categories here, either.
Anywhere that we have categories specifically for women, we should have corresponding categories for men. To do otherwise can be seen as discriminatory and/or marginalizing the women.
Keep in mind that this is my opinion. As the RfD proceeds, we may find that the consensus doesn't agree with me. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. Just to let you know I posted a general question in this regard at Wikipedia_talk:Categories#Deletion_discussions_guidelines. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, re your comment:"Anywhere that we have categories specifically for women, we should have corresponding categories for men":
If women categories are not wp:diffused it is not generally neccessary to also create a men's categories. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Notifications of possible deletion

Just wondering if it is not common to notify the editor who started a page when the page is facing a possible deletion. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ping I believe so. We have a discussion about this with regard to QDs at Simple Talk. Did I neglect to do a notification? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Auntof6, thanks for pinging me and for mentioning a discussion regarding wp:QD on wp:Simple Talk (which is probably archived at this point).
As far as notification of intent to delete is concerned, I don't think you notified through user talkpages any of those who started categories that are now up for dicussion at wp:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2019/Categories_for_women_by_occupation. Yes you pinged them but IMIO a notification through a user talkpage is of paramount importance to make more editors aware. Also, one of those is not currently active and may not log in, so will not be aware of this important discussion.
I believe the opinions of those who do not regularly engage in those discussions should be actively encouraged.
Don't want to overly burden you and wonder if this whole thread should be moved to the talkpage of the appropriate wp article. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping That discussion was still there when I replied to you, but, yes, it has now been archived. You can see it here.
As for RfDs, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion says this:
"Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage."
Note that this says "can be done by", not should or must. I don't know that a user, whether active or inactive, is more likely to see a talk page message than they are to be notified of a ping. I usually use the RfD function that leaves a talk page message, but that wasn't possible with this group nomination. Because of all that, I chose to notify by pinging.
That being said, I could see an argument being made to make that language more specific. IMO, such an discussion would be best at Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion, where you recently posted something about this very topic. When starting such discussions on the relevant talk page, it's recommended to publicize them at Simple talk because few people would see them otherwise. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)