User talk:Glman/Archive 2

Quit obscuring the LSU vs Florida football entry

The "Florida-LSU football rivalry" page has been repeatedly altered to intentionally obscure the result to suggest Florida has won more games than LSU, which is not true.

The entry contains the statement "The series between the two teams is 33–31–3, including three LSU wins which were vacated in 2023." This statement is not merely misleading, it is absolutely false. Twice I have edited the entry to correct this falsity, and twice it has been re-entered. Even granting you the maximum benefit of the doubt (a review of the edit history of this entry suggests this benefit is undeserved), the statement contains an error of grammar, and should read "The series between the two teams is 33–31–3, *EXCLUDING* three LSU wins which were vacated in 2023." followed by a sentence clarifying what the record is "including" the vacated wins. The fact that this grammatical error has been manually re-inserted twice suggests the attempt to mislead the reader has been intentional, particularly when the incorrect statement is reinforced in two other places on the page that also misrepresent the record, which by the way I have not tried to change.

Wikipedia does not exist to be the "official" NCAA record at the explicit exclusion/erasure/obscurity of actual game results. Such entries should, at the minimum, correctly state what the record is *including* the "vacated" games to make it clear to any reader, if it wishes to also present the record post-"vacated wins". This is plainly evident from many, many Wikipedia entries regarding the history of college football programs that have had previous results "vacated", including multiple entries that record vacated Florida wins. 2600:8807:4049:6D1F:D405:25B8:BCF5:7275 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@2600:8807:4049:6D1F:D405:25B8:BCF5:7275 Please see the official WikiProject College Football guidelines on vacated wins, per that guideline, the record will reflect the removal of vacated wins. I have corrected the grammatical issue. glman (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The WikiProject College football guidelines do not require the erasure and banishment of actual results, as evident by multiple college football entries reflecting results involving vacated wins, including entries regarding vacated Florida wins. Now you have also gone on to erase additional changes I have made to update the "home team record" in the second sentence, reinserting outdated information regarding the record to advance a biased representation to advance a false narrative of parity, when in fact the home records of the two teams is the opposite of each other. You have also unilaterally decided that the game containing the all-time NCAA FSB record offense in a game is not "noteworthy" because it was done against your team. It is clear you are doing this to misinform the reader and present an inaccurate representation of the record. Stop it. 2600:8807:4049:6D1F:E512:C73C:2768:3720 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:V. You listed a "notable" game with no sources cited. Wikipedia requires all information be verified and cited. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories records should reflect the totals with vacated wins removed. I recommend you review these policies. Thanks! glman (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The changes I have made are consistent with the Wiki policy you refer to. You seem to be hanging your hat on the statement "Where series records are displayed, they should exclude the game altogether, rather than be listed from the points of view of each of the two teams" This is clearly a reference to avoid cluttering places where the "series record is displayed" on its own, and indeed the official NCAA "record" is listed in two separate places elsewhere on the page, neither of which have I changed. The "game results" narrative should discuss actual "game results" in the series and be consistent with the concepts outlined in the article you cite: "permit the reader to determine the team's original, historical record" and "This NCAA revises results, not history, and this essay only undertakes to describe how such games should be reflected in the numerical tally [emphasis added] of the win-loss" The changes I have made correct a "game results" narrative which, when read in concert with the "record" presented elsewhere on the page, was designed to give the reader a false impression about the "game results", i.e. the "history" the Wiki policy you cite suggests should "not" be affected. Your repeated revisions seem to be designed to hide the net "results" of "games" played in the series by confusing the reader, who can only definitively understand them by manually adding up wins and losses from the list of individual games, which is an obscurity in the absurd. (Further, the absurdity of removing the color coding from the 3 "vacated" wins is a violation of the Wiki policy you cite, which states that "Articles describing affected matches written before the imposition of sanctions (assuming that they are otherwise consistent with Wikipedia policy) should remain largely unchanged.")

I am sure you are intelligent enough to understand the concept that official "record" and "game results" are two separate concepts. The point of a "game results" section should be to give the reader a fuller understanding of what the actual results of games have been, particularly when they deviate from the official NCAA "record" (while entries should of course also avoid cluttering placed where the "record is displayed" on its own, i.e. the "numerical tally of wins and losses"). If the "game results" narrative exist only to recite and abut the official NCAA "record" at the express exclusion of actual game results, then there is no reason for it to exist, since the "record" is already listed elsewhere on the page. A section styled in this way only serves to intentionally mislead the reader, who would look to this section for further detail and clarity of what "actually" happened, particularly if the "record" seems confusing or contrary to his or her memory. Nevertheless, I STILL have not changed your stubborn recitation of the "record" within the "game results" section (even though I do not believe it belongs there), I have only sought to provide additional clarity for the reader of what the "game results" have actually been. This is entirely consistent with Wiki policy. 2600:8807:4049:6D1F:A830:BA4B:1A39:C2A7 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This is quite the WP:WALLOFTEXT. I encourage you to delve deeper into the WikiProject of College Football. All of my editing is consistent with their guidelines - including the color of vacated wins in the table, which is quite literally designed for the purpose of highlighting vacated wins in result tables. I suspect you are an LSU fan, based on your editing and objections to language that indicates that LSU led the series before their vacated wins. I encourage you to read WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Thank you for your concerns. glman (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have delved deeply enough into the WikiProject of College Football to know that all of my editing is consistent with their guidelines. I suspect you are a Florida fan, based on your repeated editing and objections to language that clarifies the actual historical record of game results, which you have now erased in multiple different forms, and on three separate occasions substituted accurate information I have added with inaccurate substitutes that are Florida-biased.

I was drawn to these edits - which have exclusively been minor edits/clarifications of "game result" narrative from a "NPOV", only because the page was an intentional distortion designed to mislead readers, which even your subsequent edits have now confirmed and acknowledged after my input. On three separate occasions you have erased my accurate edits, replacing them with inaccurate statements, and only after my repeated badgering have you belatedly acknowledged (twice) that your version was inaccurate. (It still is).

You have now been reduced to erasing the entire narrative in the "Game Results" section aside from a short paragraph that does little more than recite the non-NPOV Florida-biased "record" yet again (even though it is already cited twice elsewhere on the page), because it has dawned on you that your "re-edit" of the 2nd paragraph (or any detailed discussion of recent "game results" for that matter) would force you to violate the narrow blind-alley reading of policy you have backed yourself into regarding "vacated" games without cluttering the page with endless caveats and footnotes. It is a shame that you wish readers to be misinformed rather than allow the entry to accurately and fully reflect the "game results" subject matter. The page as you've edited it is bland, incomplete, inaccurate, and intentionally misleading. 2600:8807:4049:6D1F:A830:BA4B:1A39:C2A7 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The detail discussion in "game results" was unsourced, and therefore needed to be removed per WP:V and WP:RS. Good evening. glman (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I am in no way a Florida fan. That's actually laughable, thanks for the lols. glman (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I will also add that this section of your reply is untrue "you belatedly acknowledged (twice) that your version was inaccurate". None of my edits have been inaccurate. All reflect the sources and Wikipedia policy. The series is correctly stated, as is the removal of three LSU wins. glman (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Your referenced to information being "unsourced" is a cop-out. The changes I added to the narrative only summarized actual "game results", which is already presented elsewhere on the page, and is in any event easily verifiable, obviously true and not even remotely controversial. It's especially laughable that you refer to "WP:V" which pretty clearly suggests that - in your case - you should have provided citations yourself if you thought they were needed, and which also makes it clear that using "V" as an excuse to make wholesale deletions of edits you disagree with is bad faith on your part.

Absolutely, your edits have been inaccurate. Absolutely your actions acknowledge this:

(1) After my minor correction to the game summary narrative, you "re-edited" the entry to assert that the "record" you indicated in the narrative "included" the vacated wins using a grammatical sleight-of-hand. I edited that twice, and twice you re-inserted it. Only after I came here to call you out on it did you finally acknowledge the "error" and accept it. Scroll up.

(2) Only on my third edit did I update the 2nd paragraph only to update the "home team" record from "11-11" to "12-11" to reflect the latest contest, and to make the description of that odd statistic more "NPOV". You first re-edited it to re-insert the prior version with the inaccurate/outdated 11-11 home team stat. Not only did your re-edit replace accurate info with inaccurate info, it served to re-insert an obscure calculation obviously designed by a previous editor (presumably you) to present a Florida-bias spin on the entry. Finally, you deleted that paragraph entirely, thus acknowledging it was wrong/inaccurate to begin with.

Clearly you are a biased editor. A review of multiple similar pages where wins have been vacated demonstrate that narrative descriptions typically discuss game results as they happen, discussing streaks, eras, major events, players and coaches, and typically don't even refer to the official "record" since doing so would be superfluous since it is listed elsewhere. Most make it clear the actual results differs from the official "record."

In fact, my last edit was designed to make the entry more closely resemble other similar Wiki entries in terms of content, and done so in a maximally "NPOV" manner. If anything, it was more favorable to Florida, yet you deleted it wholesale, as though the page is your personal fiefdom. Your edits are the only ones that seems to be intentionally opaque and misleading, going out of their way to suggest the NCAA "record" is the actual game result, and your wholesale deletion of anything more descriptive belies this intent. Again, it's a shame you prefer to deny Wiki readers a fuller description of game results so that a biased misperception might be perpetuated. 2600:8807:4049:6D1F:A830:BA4B:1A39:C2A7 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Article of the Disney character Pocahontas

It's just that I want the article about the Disney Princess character Pocahontas to say "Pocahontas is the titular character of Walt Disney Pictures' animated film Pocahontas (1995). She is also the seventh Disney Princess." How do ya like that? Esagurton (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Esagurton, why do you feel this change is better? Does it not make more sense to include the year in the sentence? glman (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's just that I like to put the years when films were released in parentheses just to be clear though. Esagurton (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles of the Disney characters Ariel and Belle

I saw ya edited the articles of the Disney Princess characters Ariel and Belle. I'd like to change the introductions of the articles as "Ariel is is a fictional character in Walt Disney Pictures' animated film The Little Mermaid (1989)" and "Belle is a fictional character in Walt Disney Pictures' animated film Beauty and the Beast (1991)" just to be sure. What do ya say? Esagurton (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

People Will Say We're in Love

I see your point, but that assumes that all songs in a musical are written by the same author(s). It also assumes that the other artists that have recorded the song have also recorded all the songs from the musical. Neither of these statements are always correct. Therefore the logical answer is to re-add the songwriters and nominate all the "songs from musicals" categories, which are listed together in the principal article, making the category scheme redundant.

Also it may be correct to not list twice in overlapping categories, there are plenty of examples where overlapping is permitted. Musicals and individual songs are patently of the latter group. Can we now agree that the writers of the song should be re-added? Thankyou. Richhoncho (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose my question is: are all songs from Oklahoma written by those categorized? The answer appears to be yes, therefore the scheme is correct. If some songs were not, then the "Songs from Oklahoma" cat should be removed from the artist categories (as some songs categorized would not be written by that artist) and readded to the page.

glman (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You have missed the point. Overlapping categories are permitted in certain circumstances. This is one. Many entries in songs by artist are twice, trice and more categorised because overlapping is permitted. If we are not going to agree on your talkpage that overlapping of authors and musicals is permissible I suggest you take the matter elsewhere for others to comment. I am not about to change my mind and will continue to argue my point. Richhoncho (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

PS. I have just checked a number of the songs by musicals categories and in every article I checked the song authors cats remained (except for one instance where no song author cats existed). --Richhoncho (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Richhoncho - I understand this, but this does not mean it is correct. We need to refer to policy, not present state of articles. glman (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being antagonistic. We are both working in WP:GOODFAITH. I'll ask for a third opinion! I am interested myself. It doesn't appear that the songwriter cats are non-diffused. glman (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, how are you doing with your further advice? As I have not heard anything, is it it OK if I return the cats to the article, like every other song related to a musical are? Richhoncho (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not ping for a 3O and have been MIA due to family matters. I will follow up later, but feel free to readd until that time. glman (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will re-add, as it is standard. If other guidance comes, then it comes. Richhoncho (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edits on rivalry articles

I started a discussion at Talk:Florida-Florida State Rivalry about your massive deletion there, but I see that you did the same sort of thing to dozens of college rivalry articles yesterday, so you're probably going to get a lot of pings and complaints today. Yes, these sorts of articles tend to be indifferently cited, and that can be a problem. But once the information is gone, it hardly ever gets put back, with or without a citation. For example, the UF/FSU article was completely revamped and expanded about ten years ago by a half-dozen editors, but I believe I'm the last one who's still active on Wikipedia. Overzealously hacking away at decent articles does not help people seeking info, and it's a particularly bad time to damage rivalry articles, as many of those games are played over Thanksgiving week and readership always surges.

So while I understand the need for sourcing, I urge you to drop in "citation needed" tags / banners and give users time to fix the problem instead of cutting out what could very well be accurate info. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Saint Clair

Are you serious!? The Wikipedia pages for the state routes even say that the community IS located on them! So your undoing was unjustified! But now I bet you are going go to the state routes' pages and undo that they junction in Saint Clair because it's "unsourced" too aren't you? -ACase0000 (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply following MOS:RS and MOS:V. glman (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Go follow it on the State Route pages too then since you insist on following it. Additionally, you can go on Google Maps and see the location of the community.-ACase0000 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@ACase0000 All users must follow MOS:RS and MOS:V. These are two of the core Wikipedia policies. Your issue is not with me. Good evening. glman (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Woo

Glman why does Woo Pig Sooie not belong on Woo? 107.77.201.19 (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sweet Briar College

I'm not sure what you thought was awkward about that "complex" sentence, as linguists call it; your rephrase has two almost identical simple sentences, both going "Flecher"-verb-more verbiage. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I'm sorry, I am totally for including the edits - I felt that the double compound was hard to follow. Not trying to diminish the addition, just trying to make it easier to read. glman (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Glman, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Watkins Glen

Source has been added. Lawtonmk (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the statement and the source again? Clearly, race results indicate that a race took place. Lawtonmk (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The race does not appear to be notable. The source is not a secondary source indicating coverage of the event per WP:RS and WP:GNG. As the original claim is unsourced (that no races occurred in 2020), it was also removed. glman (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the statement that there was no race at Watkins Glen in 2020 is proven incorrect. The race was not a spectator event, as I had edited into the comment, but it was a notable vintage automobile race, which included over 150 cars, as shown in the online results from Speedhive which is the industry standard race results page, from AMB, and includes all official race results. Lawtonmk (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Cruis'n Exotica

See here, ya idiot! It's just that Cruis'n Exotica has the track Amazon which has dinosaurs. Why the hell did ya remove that category, ya damn lunatic?! Esagurton (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Esagurton - Please see WP:CATDEF. The game is not primarily about dinosaurs. Please do not call me an idiot or a lunatic, this is a personal attack and is unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor WP:PA. glman (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I made a personal attack to you. Please forgive me. Esagurton (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Bristol Speedway is not a stadium

@Glman I have reverted your edit on the article List of U.S. stadiums by capacity, as Bristol Motor Speedway cannot be considered a Stadium. In fact, if it was so, it would be regarded the largest Stadium in the world, and no other Wikipedia article, nor other sources. So I think it is incorrect to report it as a Stadium. 14 novembre (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre - That's solely your opinion. Why isn't in a stadium? It's entirely enclosed, and it has hosted field games. We can discuss on the talk page of the article. glman (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Glman No problem, thanks for having told me. I shall discuss the problem as you suggested. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No big deal anyway

Glad you understand the distinction; most non-Tennesseans don't (I'm from Chester County).

I live in Milwaukee now, but I'll be in Chattanooga for Chattacon Friday, as I have for 49 years now. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines football

Michigan Wolverines football article. The source says Harbaugh's new contract will pay him a base salary of $4 million in 2021, which will increase to $4.426 million in 2025. He can earn a maximum bonus of $3.475 million in each year of the contract, including $1 million bonuses for winning the Big Ten championship and the College Football Playoff National Championship, and $500,000 bonuses for winning the Big Ten East Division and reaching the CFP. so that is in fact a raise. Bruxton (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well maybe it is complicated. Made 8 million in 2020 - so new contract 4 million base + $3.475m bonus but in 2025 4.426m base. I will not revert the change. Thanks for letting me work it out here. Bruxton (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I ran through the same process reading it, but it doesn't seem to clearly indicate a raise (or a cut, like another editor added earlier). Thanks! I always appreciate working collaboratively. glman (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my map

...You need to left me finish, you wasted 20 minutes of my time! Please son't jump to conclusions, reach out and allow good faith editors to finish first, thanks! StillWatchesCartoons (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You should consider using edit summaries to justify your edits and create in your sandbox before moving to mainspace. glman (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

UT

"Oldest secular institution"--sure, but I just don't really see that as relevant in the lead, particularly the reference to the Eastern Continental Divide. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have been slow motion edit warring on the linked page for several days now. Stop it before you get blocked. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 I only reverted an edit once. I'm not quite sure how that is edit warring. Please enlighten me! It was not my intention to do so. glman (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Travis Kvapil

I saw you undid my edit. I'm not going to say a lot, but however he technically is a rookie because of these reasons. 1. On YouTube there's a video of the 2005 NASCAR Busch Series qualifying at Watkins glen, after it cuts back from commercial you can see the back of Travis Kvapils no.77 Kodak Dodge charger that he drove in that race for field filler team NDS Motorsports. He had rookie stripes on the back of that car. 2. When he ran Xfinity races in 2016, he had rookie stripes, however back in 2007 and 2009, he ran the spring race at Dover in the No.47 Clorox Ford fusion for JTG Racing, he didn't have rookie stripes, later on he would drive the no.16 3M Ford fusion for roush at the fall Bristol race, and didn't have rookie stripes. Same thing for when he ran the fall Bristol race in 2009 in the no. 09 Zaxby's Ford fusion for RAB racing. So either he was eligible later on, or is not.

rac, and when he drove the No. 16 3M Ford fusion for roush at the fall Bristol race that same year, he also didn't have rookie stripes. Same case for when he ran the no.09 Zaxby's Ford fusion for RAB racing at the fall Bristol race in 2009. So either he could have been eligible later on, or not eligible for rookie of the Year MadBlade 2 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but per WP:OR and WP:RS we need a reliable source. Additionally, a driver having rookie stripes does not mean they are running for Rookie of the Year. Thanks! glman (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Of course. I just wanted to say that real quick. Of course I don't understand the whole rookie thing for driver who bypasses Xfinity for cup after the time of the truck series. But doesn't seem odd that he didn't have rookie stripes in the two Xfinity races in 2007, and the one in 2009? MadBlade 2 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Lee University

Thank you for adding a tag to expand the history section. There is a rich history that needs to be shared.

However, I'm not sure why you insist on including the statement on Lee University and homosexuality in the "history" section rather than in the section on the "community covenant". It absolutely belongs in the article, but it does not belong there. 164.106.20.68 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Lee filed an amicus brief in a case is a historical event, it's not a part of their community covenant. History needs to include all notable historical events per WP:UNIGUIDE, and this incident was one of them. glman (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It may be "historical" but as it stands is the only historical event listed. Doesn't seem representative of the history of the institution. 164.106.20.68 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, hopefully an editor does some research and writes on the history of Lee! I'm sure there are some books or other reliable sources out there. glman (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Lady Ballers - Adding Audience Score for Diverse Perspective in Good Faith

I recently watched Lady Ballers and while watching the film, as I always do, I pulled up the Wikipedia and noticed that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score was missing. I've tried adding it twice to ensure that the Wikipedia page is acting in good faith and taking in diverse points of view.

The audience score is labeled in MOST movie Wikipedia Reception sections. The information is accurate and cited. Why are you deleting it? CK99716 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@CK99716 Per WP:UGC audience scores (which are user generated) and not permitted. What films have audience scores on the article? I can't find any. glman (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh, well you definitely are in the right according to Wikipedia guideline, I've definitely seen Audience Rotten Tomato scores listed, I just finished Openhiemer, and they have listed matacritic audience scores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(film)#Reception

Well I do stand corrected. I'm just getting into this, so learning the rules as I go! Thanks for correcting me CK99716 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@CK99716 - It looks like the metacritic score on that page is actually the critic score! No worries, it's a learning curve. As long as you communicate well and work to understand Wikipedia's guidelines, you'll be a great contributor! Feel free to drop me a line if you ever have any other questions, issues, or need me to look at something. glman (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)