User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2021/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Danganronpa summaries
A user expanded the plot section of Trigger, adding every case. However, I think summaries need to be around 600 and 700 words so I don't know if the expansion was well done or necessary. Could you give it a look?Tintor2 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC) BTW, I just nominated Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair in case you are interested in reviewing due to your experience.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Lake Atna
Greetings! At my RfA you made mention [1] of possibly taking the Lake Atna article to WP:GA. The short of it; I don't want to, though I don't care if someone else does and takes credit for it.
Long version; some years back, I had this fantastical idea that it might be possible to create an article from scratch that was featured article quality on the very first edit. I thought it might be a good experiment. I had a target (then non-existent) article in mind. It was a building on the National Register of Historic Places. I took a couple of trips to the building, got my own pictures of it, bought a book that had quite a useful bits, spent time in some nearby libraries getting references, etc. I was just about ready to start writing ...and found someone else had created an article on it as I was beginning my work. As I learned more about the FA process, it became increasingly clear to me that finding perfection in a single edit creation was impossible. Nobody here can agree on what is correct. Even subtle grammar differences are sometimes subjected to months long debates. So, I gave up on that fantastical notion. Instead, I set out just to create, and do so as completely as I could. With the Lake Atna article, I spent months in development work. I scoured the net over and over again looking for sources, or any material that might even have the slightest use. I had a friend who had recently driven though the area previously covered by Lake Atna, and asked her to dig through her photos for anything that might be of interest (sadly, nothing). I exchanged emails back and forth over several weeks with scientists who had studied Lake Atna and related subjects. When I was finally done with the development work, I posted the article, perhaps overly proud of what I had created. I certainly was very satisfied with it, knowing I had done everything I could to make it as complete as possible. One day later, the article was assessed as "start class". Essentially, it was assessed as a piece of junk, barely suitable for the project. I have to admit I was devastated. It was like putting forth more effort in a college course than I had ever done before, and getting an 'F' on the next exam. It wasn't like the article was assessed by somebody with no experience either. The person had considerable experience in such work. I tried discussion with the assessor, but didn't get far with it. They subsequently changed it to "C" class, effectively saying it had significant irrelevant material and required substantial cleanup. I.e., slightly better junk, but still junk. From that point on, I've just given up caring about assessment, and don't care whether something I create gets viewed as crap or wonderful. It doesn't matter. It's not a fit of pique that results in me not wanting to attempt GA or FA with something. It's just that I don't care about it. I just donate my effort and if someone wants to run with it, all the better.
So, if you want to run with it and take it to GA, be my guest, and take credit for it if you want. I won't be bothered by you doing so. So, any credit for it being a GA (if it were to get that) would be due to you, and thus a legitimate credit. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Hammersoft, thanks for commenting! I think you misunderstand the ratings system somewhat. Start class doesn't mean junk, it means it's a perfectly adequate article that needs some things before it is considered a C-class article. The article at that time [2] was certainly at C-level class as it is now. The difference between C and GA is smaller than you might think. Looking at the article, it would need a slightly expanded lede and also a copyedit, and it would be fine to be at GA. I'm currently on wikibreak, but I'm happy to take the article through the process to show you how close the article is to passing the bar when I'm more full-time. FA on the other hand is a much wider task - much more of a "no stone left unturned" style. I think you may have been burned by reading too much into a quick rating rather than going through the process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm really not interested. After spending months working on that article and doing such an intense amount of work, it was incredibly disheartening for it to be rated so. To quote the rating system;
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate,...
That is a scathing review after such an intense amount of work. I dare anyone to come up with significantly more references to support the article. They don't exist. If you want to do something with the Lake Atna article, be my guest. I did my best, which was horribly and woefully inadequate. Since it is so awful it should be very easy for someone who has half a clue to make it better. That's not me. So be it. - Just one of the many problems with the system is its inability to properly evaluate articles in the context of known information. I guarantee you there is no possible way that article could ever be a featured article. Yet, there is no real way to significantly 'improve' the article. Oh sure, people might be able to nudge/change a few words around and call it "copyediting" (it's all highly subjective), or add a sentence or two here or there, but there's no additional material out there in the world on the subject. It's impossible for it to ever improve much beyond what it is now, and so it will forever be less than FA unless geological interest in the subject changes sufficiently that the subject starts making news. That's unlikely to happen. The rating system fails to take such issues into account.
- I've no interest in the article rating system and do not feel it adds any value to the project. From what I've seen of it (and not just my experience), the rating system is used more as bludgeoning tool and distinctly works against new editors. So, when I make articles I make them as complete as I can using what information is available. Nothing I have ever written has ever risen above C class, so effectively it's all junk or junk+ according to the rating system. I only just now checked on that, because frankly I don't look at the ratings my articles get after the Lake Atna rating. I don't care what other people think. I write to the best of my ability and let it be. I've removed myself from caring about the ratings because it is so badly broken. It's a dark corner of Wikipedia that I neither care about nor have any desire to attempt to fix.
- Honestly, what bothers me the most is the destruction the rating system is having on editors who are trying to do their best, and all they get is a "start class" assessment with little or no (and to be honest, it's almost always no) feedback from the rater on how they can improve. It's just "you suck". When someone assesses an article they should be required to contact the principle author(s) of the article and discuss the rating and how the article could be improved. According to Wikipedia:Content assessment, there's too many articles to assess to do that. My response is that doing that guarantees turning off would-be good faith editors, and not giving a damn what happens to them. If that means some articles don't get assessed, so be it. Editors are far more important than assessment. 5 million articles have been assessed. If even only .1% of those assessments results in editors being ticked off that could have been kept on as productive editors, you're looking at 5,000 editors who are now missing. To say that's unacceptable is like saying the Mediterranean Sea drying up might be newsworthy.
- Sorry for the rant. It was a very bitter pill, and I obviously haven't gotten over it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm really not interested. After spending months working on that article and doing such an intense amount of work, it was incredibly disheartening for it to be rated so. To quote the rating system;
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:WCW World Television Championship on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
RfA nomination
Hi, Lee. This is incredibly trivial, but I just wanted to let you know that the shortcut you used for Triple Crown in your co-nomination statement actually redirects to Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup, which I'm sure wasn't your intention. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Qualifying section in Home Nations tournaments
Hey there. I recently created 2021 Northern Ireland Open so that we would have a basis of the Home Nations Series' tournaments this season. However, this season, the first round is now played as a qualifier round at the Metrodome in Barnsley and the matches involving the top 16 -- including the match involving the defending champion -- are going to be played at the main venue. Therefore, the previous "draw format" no longer works because the main draw is basically starting from Round 2 this time. Whats the best way we should go about formatting the page: copying something like the 2019 International Championship or just having a table similar to the first round of each of the Q School event pages (eg Q School 2021 - Event 1)? Thanks for your reply! --CitroenLover (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I saw we treat it the same as we do with any other article with a single round of qualifying - such as the 2019 China Open. The players with matches at the venue can just have the same notes as on that article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me! I have now updated the NI Open page to match the format used on the China Open article. Only changes that will need to be made is obviously the inclusion of the draw when its known. Thank you! --CitroenLover (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019–20 Championship League
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019–20 Championship League you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019–20 Championship League
The article 2019–20 Championship League you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2019–20 Championship League for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hong Kong gold cup 1989
I have sent a source of Davis claiming the title. There are also newspapers articles regarding the result. 92.251.187.38 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- YouTube isn't a reliable source - but newspapers clippings would totally be. If you have some, I'd be more than happy to allow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me it is not up to you to allow it, it is a democracy on here mate oh dear. It Shows Eurosport coverage of him winning the event. There is newspaper articles relating to the event on the actual tournament page it if you want to subscribe to see it. 92.251.187.38 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Delet
Hi! Can you Help me? Is it normal to delet national Snooker Champions? He was the numbert 1 Player of his country??? Regads
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andreas_Ploner
Piinkkii (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Piinkkii - national snooker champions are rarely notable, they generally require that the player becomes professional, or is otherwise discussed at length to meet WP:GNG Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thx for reply. Wow! Thats VERY new to me!?? Makes no sense at all. Olympic games are not "pro" but its sure notable. If we would just take sport people who are rich then we dont take a lot :) We take EVERY single author who wrote 3-4 books. Dosent matter how successful the books was but we dont take the national champion?? The best player in the country? If i see this right you are an admin? You realy should check this. Of course we should list the 5-10 top players of a country. You dont think so?? Watch this
Notability (sports)
- Golf 3 = national champ
- Athletics 5 = national champ
- Cycling 5 = national champ
- Horse racing 3 = national champ
- Figure skating 3 = national champ
- Gymnastics 3 = national champ
- Orienteering 4 = national champ
- Rodeo 1 = national champ
- Boxing 1 = the 2nd national champ
- Individual seasons 1 = national champ
regards Piinkkii (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Piinkkii - Our rules about notability can be found at WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Even being a professional player doesn't guarantee notability. Wikipedia isn't a repository of player profiles. If you can find enough sources to suggest this person meets GNG, then that would be fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
My list is from WP:NSPORTS? Watch it. This page is full of "national champion is notable".
- Golf #3 = national champ
- Athletics#5 = national champ
- Cycling#5 = national champ
- Horse racing#3 = national champ
- Figure skating#3 = national champ
- Gymnastics#3 = national champ
- Orienteering#4 = national champ
- Rodeo#1 = national champ
- Boxing#1 = the 2nd national champ
- Individual#1 = national champ
Piinkkii (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- But snooker isn't one of those sports. Our essay on cue sports notability is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I know. pattern recognition. If you look this right you see the way of thinking of the rules. So its logical to update the rules in cue sports. Your argument was. "Just superstars witch are rich and in newspapers all the time". And if you look the other guidelines this isnt the way they are written. Its a wrong point of few. It makes absolutely no sense to accept the national champ in rodeo or golf and not in snooker or pool :) You sure also should be interested in making WP better or? Thats what I am trying to do. Just want to help. and when you think about the argument you sure see its very logical.I don't quite understand why you are that inaccessible? are you not interested in improvements? you think it is good right an fair to have 10 000 table tennis players here but the national champion - the best snooker player of a country - is not??? i cant belive you realy think this??? Piinkkii (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
PS: look at this. this is the general sports rule quote"Sports personalities Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)
A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. " You can find here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people).
And it says 2 things. 1 ALSO AMATEURS and NOT just "pros". 2 it says - won a major amateur competiton. and the national championship is the BEST "amateur" copetition witch is possible. So you see. There is a real problem when eaven you dont know this and we got strange sub rules. and eaven more sad. seams nobody cares to improve something? normaly i though you are lucky if users try to help? Piinkkii (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you would like to change our notability criteria, you'll need to open a topic at WT:SNOOKER, or WT:NSPORT, and notify the project. FWIW, our criteria for inclusion for other sports are far too inclusive. You seem to think that having more articles makes our coverage better, which isn't the case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Danganronpa
@Alexandra IDV: Goodbye Despair became GA! I am still not sure about working on Killing Harmony but it would be neat to have the entire trilogy (anime you reviewed included) GA. On the other hand, I never finished Ultra Despair Girls so I can't work on that. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:State Arsenal (Providence, Rhode Island) on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
JustAUser201468 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Is there something you would like to say JustAUser201468? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
JustAUser201468 (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) empty like the other commnet
- Please don't JustAUser201468. I left you a warning about spamming talk pages. This is not a forum. If you are unable to help build an encylopedia, you may be blocked, as competency is required. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Your signature
Hi Lee,
I saw that your signature contains the words Best Wishes. However, I don't think it would be appropriate for every comment you make like the one above this thread (Precious anniversary). I think it would be best to think about whether to add that to your signature and then add it manually. I hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree. I would like to think, even when giving the most stern of response, the intentions are still good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- One thing that really caught my eye is when you block someone like here. I was wondering if you think adding best wishes is fine because you are wishing them the best if they decide to create an unblock request. Also, I noticed it in your holiday greeting to you here. I'll respect your decision if you decide not to change your signature, but I thought I was pointing things out that you might consider. Interstellarity (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of The Loud House characters on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Promotion of 1987 World Snooker Championship
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
players on tour query
Hey Lee, hope you're doing well. I just wanted to ask: owning to the fact that there are just 122 players on tour for the 2021-22 snooker season (due to the pandemic) and a large number of tournaments require 128 players to create the standard halving of players to reach the final stage, I believe its worth putting in a column for the guaranteed top 6 players from the Q School Order of Merit who did not earn a tour card, because they will be in the draw for every single tournament as top ups. However, I know this is not a normal thing to include because there hasn't been a season that required such a thing to be included, but since this season is the first not to have 128 players for god knows how long (more than a decade?), i think its worth including since WST have indicated they'll be using the top up list extensively this season. [I posted this on the articles' talkpage but I don't get the feeling anyone reads or replies to messages there, hence moving to ask on your talkpage directly]. --CitroenLover (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hello? --CitroenLover (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Probably a better question for WT:SNOOKER. I can't say I understand why they aren't just calling those players up to the main tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you for the response, will post there! And yeah, I don't understand it either, but I suppose the main reason is being able to be flexible with their invitees. --CitroenLover (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Probably a better question for WT:SNOOKER. I can't say I understand why they aren't just calling those players up to the main tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2021
- News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more
- In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money
- Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release
- Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report
- Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way
- News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview
- Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?
- Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed
- Obituary: SarahSV
GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
| Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lake Atna you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Lake Atna you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lake Atna for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)