Jump to content

User talk:Auntof6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Unblock

[change source]

Please unblock my bot, CactusismeBot Cactus🌵 hi 07:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: Why? Your bot request was declined. You were asked to test it elsewhere before asking for bot status here. If you have done that testing, you can make a new bot request and the responding crat can unblock it if they see fit.
Besides that, we seem to have a bot now that is essentially doing the function you indicated for your bot. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, I just don't want it blocked. Cactus🌵 hi 07:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: If it's not being used, there's no need to unblock it. We normally block users with "bot" in the name if they don't have the bot flag. If it makes you feel any better, my bot is blocked on English Wikipedia, but that's not a problem because I don't use it there. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No there are many bots without blocks, see MdWikiBot, VIP Helper Bot Cactus🌵 hi 07:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also your bot was unblocked on en Cactus🌵 hi 07:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Huh, I didn't know it was unblocked. But anyway, whataboutism is not a reason to unblock your bot. Do you have plans to make another bot request? -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no Cactus🌵 hi 07:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Then, as I said, there's no reason to unblock if it isn't going to be used. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for disturbing, is a bot that replace ==External links== to Other websites a good idea? Cactus🌵 hi 10:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: I would say that depends. I would want more details on how it would work. But don't propose it here: propose it at the designated place. Or if you just want to ask in general, you'd want to ask the people who can give the bot flag, which is the bureaucrats. I'm just an admin. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you opinions, if thats a good idea as you seem to be knowledgable persome and seem to give good comments. The bot would mainly choose 50 random pages when run and would try to detect ==External links== in the article, if there is it would replace. Cactus🌵 hi 11:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: I'm not that knowledgeable about how automated bots work. Why choose random pages? You'd almost never hit a page that had the string: when I do an AWB run to fix them, there usually aren't more than a couple hundred at any given time. Can't the bot search for the string to find what actually needs it? Of course, it would need to search for variations of the string if you want it to be the most effective. On the other hand, I've seen people use External links for things other than what we call Other websites, so it might not be ideal to replace them all without a person checking first.
On another note, I looked again at your previous bot requests, and it concerns me that someone said you were using AI to write the code. I don't know if you actually did that, but I would never support a bot whose code was written by AI. Of course, I don't have the final say. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, okay. Also, never have used ai for code Cactus🌵 hi 11:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would user:Cactusisme, then prefer, that user:Cactusisme asks to have the bot Deleted?--If my post is regarded as an attempt at being helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:2D38:3FD:73C9:1582 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like any other account, it can't be deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information

[change source]

Hi there. Since that is related to you, I'd liked to inform you about this. If you want to bring that up on AN (longer block or whatever), feel free to do so. Just wanted to let you know about this. -Barras talk 22:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barras: Thanks. They'd been mostly civil for a while, as far as I could tell, so I thought things were better. Apparently not. I'm always hesitant to take action myself when I'm the target of such comments, since it wouldn't be seen as impartial. I'm just glad other people saw it this time and said something/took action. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having now given Davey his warning I would very much like to hear of any violations you notice. Please either report it to AN or let me know directly. Even one instance of incivility will trigger his block. On a personal note I'd like to say that it is unfortunate that we missed this problem prior to now: we could have acted sooner and prevented much rudeness. Best regards fr33kman 04:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: Thank you. I will report any that I notice. I didn't report it sooner because I consider a certain amount of abuse to "come with the territory" of being an admin, but the recent comments on the RFD were beyond the pale. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think any amount of abuse from the regular editors is part of the territory : vandals and LTA yes, but not the community. Regards, fr33kman 11:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman: Good point. I will adjust my viewpoint. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Davey2010 did not acknowledge the warning and did not apologise to you within the given 24 hours, he has been blocked for 6 months. Hopefully this will help him to edit more kindly in the future. Regards fr33kman 05:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman: Sigh. Not the resolution I would have wanted, but thanks for letting me know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, non-intuitive text (after the last section). Non-urgent

[change source]

From article, Alcohol.
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcohol_%28drug%29&diff=10448681&oldid=10448368
.--For your information. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:61A0:176A:3F18:B2CE (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup on it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I am a little confused as to the issue of having the cross-wiki links here. These cross-wiki links were intentionally added since those wikis do not have equivalent lemmas. I think Davey2010 had a false positive with his WPCleaner and added colons, and then 2001 probably interpreted this as a problem. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 10:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe: First, the guideline at Wikipedia:Links to other websites says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia" (italics mine). Other Wikipedias are not outside Wikipedia.
The other issue I saw with them was the formatting. If they're going to be included, they should be formatted in a way that displays meaningful text. For example, it could be:
...where "xxxx" is an English translation of what the article is about.
Finally, neither the French nor the German article that were linked is about the same subject as the article here, so I'm not sure why they would need to be included anyway. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't links to other wikipedia articles, they're part of the cross-wiki links in the "In other languages" text. These were deprecated a long time ago, but these have to remain, since the mapping of articles in other languages is not exactly 1:1. For example, in German Wikipedia, most mentions of alcohol, ethanol, spirits, etc redirect to De:Ethanol. Alcohol use as a drug maps most directly to De:Alkoholkonsum (alcohol consumption), but since the topics are only mostly overlapping but not specifically the same, they don't share wikidata pages but do have the cross-wiki links as an equivalent version of the article, for navigation purposes. The same goes for French.
I mostly have done this because this is what the en version does, and I agree with the concept. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 17:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MrMeAndMrMe. These shouldn't be counted as links to other websites. This practice has been used for over 20 years. The difference is just that Wikidata replaced the article-to-article interwikis. MrMeAndMrMe, do you know if these can show up on the sidebar if the initial colons are removed? canadachick (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is what happened before Davey's edit. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 18:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I 'totally get', the 'in-article edit' of user:Auntof6.--I started this thread (merely as a heads-up, to user:Auntof6).--Discussion moved, to the relevant talk page:

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alcohol_(drug)&oldid=10450908
. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:9534:7C0:5703:5416 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:61A0:176A:3F18:B2CE[reply]

'One famous person, that has ... diagnosis ... this type of dementia'

[change source]

Hi! Do you think it might be okay to say, something very close to the following:

At least one famous person, has been diagnosed with "Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA), which is a type of Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD)".--Is it okay to link to the persons name, 'instead of 'Famous action-hero and playhouse-actor ...'?
(Sources published by: 'The med uni of South Caroline'; Bright Focus Foundation; Chapters Health System.) Have a nice day. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:9C67:56EA:F61C:EA44 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you've given me here, I'd say no. To say "at least one famous person" is vague. If you say who it was, just use their name without the "Famous action-hero and playhouse-actor". You'd also need a reliable source showing that the person was diagnosed with the condition. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 2001:2020:359:B9D1:8087:D206:89E6:BD65 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:9C67:56EA:F61C:EA44[reply]

Low priority? One (or both might be a hoax)

[change source]

These following two 'persons, have the same picture' , but different date of birth, and different year of birth.

Mohsen Gharaei (Film director)
Mohsen Qaraei
.--No 'links at En-wiki'.--The article at en-wiki was created c. yesterday, it seems.--If this thread is of any interest whatsoever, then fine. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:8087:D206:89E6:BD65 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low priority. Move to "Naustdal (statistical area)", please

[change source]

Could you please 'have someone' move
"Naustdal",
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naustdal&oldid=10460928

to, Naustdal (statistical area).--Problem: "Naustdal (former municipality)" is not the same thing as "Naustdal (tettsted)"; The two, latter things are actually both 'urban areas'; The one area can/will sprawl from year to year, much like a metropolis.--The former municipality, on the other hand, will never increase its area.--The government 'does not do, current' population numbers, for 'former municipalities'.
Please make move, without redirect.

'When that gets done', then i plan to swiftly write article about 'Naustdal (former municipality)'.--(I am not too concerned with, what titles, the articles might end up with, 'down the line'.--Note: Store norske leksikon, the encyclopedia, 'hardly has articles about' some/many of the various tettsted in Norway; But of course that encyclopedia has articles about all the former municipalites of Norway. Thank you. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:8087:D206:89E6:BD65 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:8087:D206:89E6:BD65 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked English Wikipedia article is called "Naustdal (village)". Can we rename it to that instead? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Please rename to Naustdal (urban area).--(There are 990 of that kind of urban areas in Norway (and many thousand villages)).--Without redirect, please.--More info, the 'c. 1200 people' live om an area that equates to c. 900 x 900m. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:909B:57BA:2E12:5C75 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:8087:D206:89E6:BD65[reply]

That wouldn't match what's in the attached Wikidata item. Is this page about the same place as the English Wikipedia article en:Naustdal? Or en:Naustdal (village)? Or neither? -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low priority ("The Coalition of the Willing", a disambig)

[change source]

The Coalition of the Willing-topic. If possible, please see if 'the following sandbox text' seems passable,

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=10462804

.If this 'maybe can' pass
QD A1, then fine. (I have worked on this version, until a few minutes ago. And i ain't gonna 'make a career out of that disambig'.) Thank you. 2001:2020:359:B9D1:909B:57BA:2E12:5C75 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CountryANDWestern

[change source]

Sir, I think it's important to talk about the user CountryANDWestern, this user seems to be behind each of my editions, It's really annoying that he's always pointing out mistake after mistake, no matter how small. This user joined only 3 months ago and does not seem to be in good faith. What can I do? Sir Banking (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]