User talk:Tropical Storm Angela/Archive 4

I have just copy edited and simplified this article. I have the following comments on it:

• Quite a bit of what you wrote didn't make sense. It seemed like you just cut parts out of the enwiki article just to shorten it, without thinking about whether the parts left in made sense.
• You removed the bullets from the list of meanings and replaced them with colons. Don't do that. Use standard bullets for lists.
• You said the phrase "begins around 1826". "Begins" or "began" isn't a good verb to use here, plus the verb used should be in the past tense.
• The enwiki article says "in 1826", not "around 1826". Please don't change text that mentions a specific time to be less specific. I've mentioned that to you before.
• This article is pretty much a dictionary definition. When you choose an article to create, please make sure there's something more to it than just a definition.

Let me know what questions you have about any of this. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always trying my very best, Auntof6. You know, articles created by me are simplified and copy edited with intent before I bring them to Simple English Wikipedia. Angela Maureen (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you always try your best. I know you try to simplify articles. I also know you aren't clear on what's simpler, so sometimes you make things more complex instead. This particular article was just really hard to understand.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you copy edit the articles. Copy editing includes making sure that grammar is correct, the text is accurate and well-written, and that things are formatted correctly. Is that what you mean?

Is it helpful at all for people to point out this kind of detail to you? Do you learn from it? I know there are some things I've seen you learn after having them pointed out. That's why I keep doing it.--Auntof6 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really. I do try to perform my best during learning and depression troubles. Sometimes, tackling a project is overwhelming to me, and I simplify to the best of all ability. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of many articles that are put up for deletion due to being insufficient. If you know about the articles you're creating, then you can write longer articles in your own words. You could use the info in the en article to simplify it into a Simple article. You need to understand the topic in a relatively complex form before simplifying it. A thesaurus can assist in finding more simple terms that have the same/similar meaning to complex terms. Jim Michael (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Thesaurus can help find synonyms, but it doesn't say what words are simpler. For that, you need a feel for the language. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the changes I made to this article and make sure you understand each one. If there are any you don't understand, please ask. The main thing that needed changing was in the last sentence. There were two problems with it. First, you made the text more complex than it was in the enwiki article ("high critical response" is more complex than saying it won an award). Second, you changed the name of the festival from "Berlin International Film Festival" to "Berlin Film Festival". Even if you think the word "international" is complex, you don't change the name of something. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To help us keep articles up to date, when you create an article about a future event (such as a movie that hasn't been released yet), please flag them for update after the date the event is expected to happen. You can do that with the {{update after}} template. See the change I made to Boyhood (movie) for an example. Also, when creating articles about upcoming movies, be sure they meet the notability criteria for such movies. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some things when I was editing Zhané. These are minor, just things you probably didn't know.

• Song titles are formatted with the double quote mark (also called "quotation marks"), not with two separate apostrophes. The two apostrophes put the title in italics, which is used for movies, books, and a few other things. Song titles, names of short stories, and some other things get the double quotes. If you'd like to see the lists of which things get which kind of formatting, it's at en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. An example of correct formatting would be:

What you code: The song "Billie Jean" was on the album ''Thriller''.

What you see: The song "Billie Jean" was on the album Thriller.

• The "musician" categories are for individual people. Groups go in the categories under "musical groups".
• When writing about American subjects, we use American English. In American English, when you talk about a group of people, you use singular verbs, not plural verbs. In other words, you say "the group was", not "the group were".

Anyway, these are just some fine points that lots of our editors probably don't know, so don't stress over these. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mention, I always try my best. Thanks for the reminder Angela Maureen (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, in British English, a group is referred to in the plural - for example Coldplay are an English rock band, not is. Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said otherwise -- for British topics, we use British English. That's why I said American English. I was just puzzled about a person from the US using British English in an American topic. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have asked before, please do not change facts when you simplify articles from English Wikipedia.

• Your version of this article said that vintage clothing is second-hand. Vintage clothing can also be new -- not in the sense of having been made recently, but in the sense of not having been owned or worn before.
• Your version also said that "vintage" applies to anything at least 20 years old. The enwiki article says that it only applies to things back as far as the 1920s.

When you're looking at an article to simplify, it might help to spend some time to read it carefully. Make sure you understand every part of every sentence, and why it ways what it does. It's easy to change the meaning by removing something when you don't understand why it's there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6, please understand the truth that I make articles simple with strong ability. I feel totally embarrassed when confronted with statements like this. Whatever else can I do for Simple English? I'm here for the long haul, and statements of this magnitude make me feel like a pathetic editor. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you to feel embarrassed. I actually admire you for continuing to work even when you are criticized, especially with the disabilities you've said you have. What I want is for the articles here to be accurate and well-written. Is there a different way you would like people to let you know what needs to be improved in the articles you create? The only way I know is to tell you. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about living people, or groups of people who have at least one living member (such as a band), should have the blp notice on their talk pages. This is done by adding {{blp}} to the talk page. This can be done at the same time that you add the attribution. Jim Michael (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant IMDb page should be on all biography articles of actors, directors, producers, cinematographers etc. and on every movie. This is done by adding *{{imdb|}} to bios and *{{imdb title|}} to movie articles, and putting the relevant number in the second part of the bracket. The number can usually be obtained by clicking the link on the en article of the same person/movie. Jim Michael (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link for attribution on this article goes to en:Philosophical skepticism instead of to the enwiki article about the actress. Could you fix that, please? Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Auntof6, fixed the link to the page. Thanks for informing me! Angela Maureen (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take another stab at describing the plot of this movie? The sentence in the article now is complex and doesn't make much sense. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I described it the best way I could. Sometimes, I can't always find things that really do make sense. I don't intently get things complex. That's just my writing nature. Angela Maureen (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't intentionally make things complex. In the regular world, we all probably write with more complex language. Here, though, we have to use simple language. That is the whole purpose of this Wikipedia. You wouldn't write in English on the French Wikipedia just because you didn't know the French for something, right? It's the same here -- the language here is "Simple English", not regular English, so we need to use simple language. If you can't find simple language for an article or you can't get it to make sense, then either write something else instead or ask someone for help. Would you like me to move that article to your userspace so you can work on it? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the en article doesn't make sense either - perhaps it was badly translated. If you've seen the movies you're writing about, it may be better to write about them in your own words rather than trying to simplify them from en. Jim Michael (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I've removed the plot description. Articles about movies should say something about the plot, but in this case, the description wasn't helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few notes about things I have changed in your articles in the last day or so:

• When you talk about a movie plot, you should say the movie is about something, not on or of.
• In Melvin Franklin, you changed "bass singer" to "singer of bass". That doesn't make sense. "Bass" isn't a style of music, it's a vocal range, like soprano or baritone. This change shows that you didn't understand what the sentence in the enwiki article meant. If you simplify an article from somewhere else, you first have to understand every part of what the original says. If you don't completely understand it, it's probably better not to create that article here.
• Don't start movie articles with "The movie" (for example, "The movie Foo is a 2013 comedy movie"). Just start with the name of the movie (for example, "Foo is a 2013 comedy movie").
• In Alicia de Larrocha, you said she was "a major piano legend in the 20th century". That is what Wikipedia calls "Peacock terms" and they're a bad thing. It means saying something that glorifies the subject without really saying anything about it. The only reason that worked in the enwiki article is that it was followed by referenced quotes from major reliable sources about her being the best of her time. The important part of that sentence was the quotes, but you didn't include those. This is an example of removing part of an article but leaving text that doesn't work by itself.
• When a movie or person gets a nomination for an award, you should say they were nominated for the award, not nominated with it.
• Some complex words I saw were praise, relocated, and via.
• Finally, every article about a living person needs at least one reference. I know people have mentioned this to you before. If you're bringing an article over from enwiki, there are probably references in it: keep them. If there aren't any, or you can't fit them into your simplified version of the article, then either include a little more of the article or write about someone else. In fact, keep the references in any article you bring over from enwiki. We don't have as many references here as we should.

You don't need to tell me you do your best. I already know that. It's just that since you create so many articles here, these issues add up and need addressing sooner. As always, let me know if you have any questions about any of this. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi September 1988, I noticed some personal abuse and harrassment had been added to your page by an IP. This is not acceptable, and you should not have to put up with it. I have blocked the IP for one week. If it happens again, let me know and I will take stronger action to protect you and your pages. Keep up the good work, --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This happens to many people who revert/remove vandalism. Don't take it personally, trolls deliberately annoy many people, but it usually isn't personal, although it often feels that way. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you give warnings on talk pages, please don't start with the "final" warning like you did for IP user 78.148.138.182, no matter how bad you think the vandalism was. Start with first-level warnings.

Wikipedia's warning messages were designed to start by explaining that people can't do whatever they want here, then get more stern with each level until getting to the final level. It might seem like people should know that they can't do what we consider vandalism, but we don't assume they know that. That's why we have the graduated warning levels. In the data processing world in general, computer systems have to have some kind of online statement as to who is allowed to access them and what people are allowed to do on them: when they don't have such a notice, they can have a hard time prosecuting hackers. Here, anyone is allowed to edit (unless they are blocked), so we have to be sure to follow the procedures to let them know when they do something unacceptable. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Aunt. The users were making vandalism on multiple articles. I'll begin with the first warnings like always from now on. I just thought the vandalism was very severe. Angela Maureen (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page you wrote, Eli Lilly and Company, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Rus793 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not nearly simplified enough, so I have moved it to your userspace for work. Please have someone review it before moving it back to mainspace. I could do that, or you could ask someone else. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you bring over articles from enwiki, please keep whatever sources they have in the part that you keep. There's no reason to remove the sources if they're already provided for you. The same goes for infoboxes. For example, the enwiki article on Silvana Mangano had an infobox, as well as very good sources for her birth and death dates. It doesn't make sense to remove sources that are already available, and then tag the article here as needed sources. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela may not know how to create infoboxes, nor how to cut-and-paste one from en to here. Jim Michael (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela, if you don't know how and can't figure it out, I'm sure someone would be glad to help you learn. The references are important, and the infoboxes would be a good improvement to the articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the improvements that have been implemented on articles you've created, you'll see how to improve how you write them. You could try to write fewer, longer articles. Jim Michael (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These should include the person's nationality, date and place of birth, what they are known for (profession, best-known works). If dead, the date, place and cause. There should be at least one reliable source on each article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These should include the year, country, genre and plot. They should state the main people involved: the stars, directors, producers and writers. If specified, the setting should be stated. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put something in this article to show why Hickenlooper was notable? A person can make documentaries without becoming notable. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject's best-known/most popular/most successful/most influential works should be stated on biographies. In any field, most people are not notable. Being a major part of notable works is typically what makes a person notable. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the tag {{BLP unsourced}} to you before. It was unnecessary to revert my change on Cass Elliot. If you had more questions you should simply have asked me. I've tried to be helpful every time you've asked me a question before. Again, the tags are not aimed at you or any individual editor. They are there for all editors. It's there so that any editor who is willing, will add reliable source citations. I'm sure we'd both like to see this grow from a stub into a great article. Please, read theWikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy for yourself if you're not certain. The part we discussed was under the section heading Recently dead or probably dead. It says "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." Note it says a reliable source. Also note that in this article there is no reliable source confirming her death. Obviously it's not a question of did she die, I think we both know she did. But our readers may not know this. They would read this article to learn about Cass Elliot. Wikipedia is credible when we prove our statements with reliable source citations. I use this tag because it places additional emphasis on the need for reliable inline source citations. According to this policy it is the correct tag. Can you think of any reason why it shouldn't be changed back? Thanks Rus793 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an editor cannot always find proper sources to indicate official death had happened to the person, so no sources is a proper tag. We've gotta be careful about tagging certain articles for proper reason. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela, the policy says that a biographical article is to be treated as a BLP unless either the person was born over 115 years before or there is a reliable reference in the article saying that he or she died. No one is saying that Mama Cass, for example, is still alive, just that the article here doesn't have a reference for her death. There are legal issues with having articles about living people, and the way Wikipedia decided to deal with that is to make the assumption I just described. I see how that can seem unreasonable, even ridiculous, but it's how Wikipedia decided to deal with the possible liability, and it's policy.

I haven't checked the enwiki copies of all the biographical articles you've created recently, but the article on Mama Cass does have references about her death. If you include such references here, there wouldn't be an issue. If you need help figuring out how to copy the references into an article here, let me or someone else know. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added a reference to the Cass Elliot page. Other sources, though, will be needed though I ain't able to find more; the only other source I could've used was Cass' own web site. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable AllMusic is considered to be. Did you look at the enwiki article? It has several references in the section about her death. Two of them are from The New York Times, a very reliable source. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela, one of the nice features of the BLP unsourced tag, an advantage over the no sources tag, is it has links at the bottom of the tag to help editors. When you click on news, books or scholar, a search for the subject is automatically generated. It would be nice if the other source tags had this feature. So using this tag, when appropriate, helps the article. Again, this tag helps generate sources for an unsourced biography of a living (or recently deceased) person. For example, If you wanted to add more interesting information on Cass Elliot from a book that meets the reliable source criteria, see the book ‘’Rock Obituaries - Knocking On Heaven's Door ‘’ (London: Omnibus Press, 2010). This was on the list generated by the automatic search in the tag. Rus793 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All types of tag should have links on them. If they don't it's the format of the tag that needs changing. Rus, several editors have removed the BLP unsourced tag after you added it to many bios of people who died years ago. The tag helps prevent libel/BLP vios, which aren't an issue for people who died years ago.

AllMusic is used frequently as a source on en. I'm not aware of it being said on there that it's not reliable.

Jim Michael (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just pointed out to Angela this particular tag has extra features to help editors find reliable sources. To add these links to other citation tags is a good idea. As far as what other editors do to articles, like deleting appropriate tags, that's their own responsibility. I think the discussion of the BLP policy regarding deceased individuals born within the last 115 years has been pretty well covered here. If you have more comments or questions, there is a similar discussion going on at WP.Simple talk. Your question on AllMusic should be answered by reading the WP:RS policy. Rus793 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent BLP article, Carole Cook, had no sources. BLPs require sources, and the sources should be reliable ones. (Actually, all articles should have sources, but it is especially important with BLPs because there can be legal issues involved.) There is a policy that articles about living people can be deleted if they do not have sources. If you can't find sources for an article about a living person, then just don't create that article. It is not enough to tag the page as an unsourced BLP or leave a comment on the talk page that you couldn't find any sources. The enwiki article on Carole Cook has sources, so you don't have to search for them yourself. If you don't know how to copy the sources from there, you can ask someone to help you with that.

Again, please do not create any more articles about living people unless you include reliable sources. This is very important. If you can't find a reliable source, then create an article about something else. You have been told about this several times recently, so consider this a warning. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help reverting that user's changes. He has accused you of cyberbullying, but I know that's not true, so don't worry about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's since been blocked. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can often subcategorise. For example, if an American comedy film was released in 2013, it is better that it is in Category:2010s comedy movies and Category:American comedy movies as opposed to being in the parent cat Category:Comedy movies. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this article to your userspace (User:September 1988/Sex-positive feminism) because it needs simplifying. It has quite a few complex words, including these:

centers on, sexual freedom, essential, roots, stereotyped, associated, renounced

Some of the sentences could also be written more simply. It would also be good if you give a reference. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey September, I'm really irritated with Chinese man 38202. He's reverting my good edits. I'm reverting his vandalism and he reverts them. Plus he wrote on my talk page that I'm the one vandalizing the articles and is threating to block me. Please I think a longer block on this user is necessary. He's being very rude and obnoxious. I know how you feel. I posted something on the Wikipedia:AN and guess what, he wrote something about me getting banned. Please help me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there TDKR Chicago. I'm watching this really close. Angela Maureen (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Angela. He's been blocked for a week, but I have a bad feeling he'll be back to do bad to me and to continue is vandalism. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Apparently he claims that you're a sockpuppet of me and he's asking for a unblock. He's still pinning me down :(. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personal TDKR. He's just making trouble and being very childish. Angela Maureen (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the support. You're a dear friend. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Angela, I'm going to be gone for a week and I was wondering if you can keep and eye out for Chinese man. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You might have noticed that Chinese Man was blocked for a week, so not much watching out would be needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit (the message you left on Chinese Man's talk page: don't tell users they will be banned. Banning takes a vote of the community, and no individual user, not even an admin or other 'crat, can tell a user they will be banned. When you're not using the standard templates for warning, the most you should say to a user, no matter how bad their vandalism, is that they might be blocked. When you're dealing with a vandal like this, just revert their edits, leave standard warnings as appropriate, report them at WP:VIP, and leave the rest to the admins. There's no need to engage them further. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In articles, when talking about someone dying, we don't use phrases like passed away, perished, succumbed, etc. We just say "died". Not only is that simpler, but it's in Wikipedia's manual of style. See en:Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Euphemisms for information about this. You might also like to read the rest of that page for information about similar things. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I'm using a Samsung Mobile Phone due to my computer problem. Computer officials said they don't recommend fixing my old computer due to malfunction of the motherboard. I'll be getting another Windows 7 computer very soon, and from there, I'll simplify Sex-positive movement and maternal health. I'm unable to do that via cell phone. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, in Typhoon Rammasun, you wrote that the typhoon had "taken thirty-eight lives". Just say that it killed 38 people. It's simpler, and it's more straightforward. Wikipedia doesn't soften language like you find in the press, it just says things straight out. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Lethal Injection (album), you changed the meaning of something that's in the English Wikipedia article. Take a look at these two phrases:

From English Wikipedia:

"it was heavily criticized"

From the article as you wrote it here:

"it was condemned by critics"

Those are not the same, for the following reasons:

• When you say "by critics", that implies that the people you are talking about are people who do criticism for a living. The original sentence didn't say that, it just said that there was criticism. That criticism could have come from consumers or someone else.
• "Condemned" is a much stronger thing than "heavy criticism". (Also, "condemned" is a complex word.)

This is another example of what I was talking about when I said you need to be sure you understand what the original article says so that you don't change the meaning. Please be careful about that. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angela, I know that you're a busy user and I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but I was wondering if you can help me review some hooks at the DYK and maybe even review my hooks so that we can update the DYK. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How could I help you review those hooks? DYK does need an update here. Angela Maureen (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can review the current nominated facts. The next queue update was due on 2 June 2014. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you give a population figure and mention a census, you say "at the census", not "in the census". It's sort of a shortened way of saying "at the time of the census".

When you give the year of a movie release, just say "the movie was released on <date>" or "the movie was released in <year>". Don't say things like "was the date that the movie was released".

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela, I'm sorry, but I have moved several of your recent articles into your userspace because they were not simple enough. They are here:

• User:September 1988/Gay liberation
• User:September 1988/Gay pride
• User:September 1988/Lesbian feminism

You really need to start doing something to be sure your vocabulary is simple. You could use one of the automated tools that give you an idea of how complex text is. You could also check your text against the lists of simple words: we're not limited to those words, but if you see that your articles uses a lot of words not on those lists it would give you an idea. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Auntof6: I can't always be simple as I create articles on this Simple English. Please tell me which article has what complex term and with which alternate word can the complex term be replaced. I'm confused here. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your reply here to keep this conversation in one place. If you reply, please reply here.

You say you can't always be simple when you create articles here. You've said that before, and my response has always been the same: you have to. It's required. That is the whole point of this Wikipedia. If articles here aren't in simple language, there's no reason for this Wikipedia to exist. If you can't write in simple language, then either you need to get help with it or you need to write for regular English Wikipedia instead.

I've given you suggestions on how to figure it out yourself. I'm not sure why you don't take them. I've tried personally helping you, but the last time I worked with you on this kind of thing, you said you didn't think we were "getting anywhere", so I might not be the right person to help you. I just know it's not good to have more and more articles here that aren't in simple language. Most of the time I just simplify them myself, but I'd like not to have to do that so often. I don't know what else to say at this point. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Describing a complex subject in a simple way is difficult. One way to do that is to write it normally, then simplify it. It might be better to write it elsewhere, then improve it before you create the article on here. Lesbian feminism includes the complex words perspective and dissatisfaction. These could be replaced with view and being unhappy with. A thesaurus would help you find other terms. After writing an article, think about if it is simple enough for an uneducated person, a child or a person whose first language is not English to understand it. It would be better if you spent more time on each article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've simplified Lesbian feminism, and removed two complex wordings. Any other complex words in this, Gay pride or Gay liberation? Can someone please help me? Angela Maureen (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting good advice from editors who obviously care. Here are a few ideas you can apply to this and all your articles:

• We all learned Simple English first. Think of writing to a younger you who would not have the language skills you do now. When writing for a child a writer would use more simple sentences (each having a subject, a verb, and a completed thought) and fewer compound sentences. A writer would use simpler words whenever possible.
• Writers usually write about what they understand. A writer who understands something should be able to write about it in several different ways and to more than one level of reader.
• A compiler (which is what an editor at Simple English Wikipedia is) gathers information for an article; sometimes from several sources. Without thinking about it, a compiler can sometimes mimic the style of writing from what they are reading. If some of your articles are simple and others are complex, it may just be because unconsciously you are mimicking the style of what you are reading. Being aware of that tendency helps keep it simple.
• To get in the spirit of writing simpler sentences and using simpler words, do not be afraid to try something extreme. Read a children’s book now and then! Read at least a page or two. That tendency to mimic the style of writing works with reading very simple materials also.
• Writing in Simple English often takes more words than writing in normal English. If you have only a few sentences, chances are it is not as simple as it could be.
• Always check your work. When you think you are finished, read what you wrote. Is it simple? Are there more simple sentences than compound? Did you link words that are not in Simple English to other articles or to Wiktionary? Polishing a good article or stub always makes it better.
• Lastly, always think about the reader. Editors here are here to compile an easy to read encyclopedia. That is the job we all volunteered for.

Take your time and give some thought to how you can simplify your articles. Sure, someone could step in and fix this one for you, but what about the next one? And the next? Take whatever you can from this and see if you can look at this article differently. With some practice you can be really good at this. You'll see. 67.142.98.213 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]