User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2018/June

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lee Vilenski. 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.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 FIFA World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moscow Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article WrestleMania 2 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 LM2000 -- LM2000 (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The article WrestleMania 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:WrestleMania 2 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LM2000 -- LM2000 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forbidden Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 2018 World Snooker Championship has been completed. You'll notice I removed dozens of duplicate Wikipedia links in the body of the article. The general practise when linking a subject to another WP article is to link it once when it first appears in the body of the article. (If it's linked in the article's lead, it should be linked again in the body.) It makes sense (to me) to link each individual once in the Main Draw and Qualifying sections so that a reader does not have to go back and comb through the article to find a link. I would suggest you go through these sections' tables and remove the duplicate links as a final clean up of the article.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't re/un-revert, but the only reason that was AfDed (barely) is because of lack of paper sourcing; the vast majority of material on old VG companies is offline, in paper gaming-related magazines of the era. It definitely does have possibilities. If probably 1–2 more sources had been present and had not been VP-specific, the article would have been kept.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Hi SMcCandlish - Apologies if it seemed rude, I simply thought it was standard practice to not promote the creation of articles deleted at AfC. You can revert if you wish. Personally, I didn't find Celeris to be particularly notable (VG developers need an awful lot of fame for inclusion from my experience). I did do a bit of a check for gaming magazines from the few places I could find before the AfD, but I couldn't come up with anything. I'd be more than willing to help look for some sourcing, or if there was a call for an article like this (however, I don't feel like I'd be able to find much.)

As for the redirect, it's fine either way for me. To be honest, I'd forgotten you took part in the AfD, and assumed you weren't aware it was AfD'd. My apologies. Hope you are well Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you purposely ignore assessing her in the biography template? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fishhead2100 - I'm not sure about the question. My only edit on the article, was on the talk page to change the PW status (as I did with about 50 articles, which were listed as "not rated" by the wikiproject. I use rater, to do this, which autofills talk page statuses. Was there something I did wrong? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I never heard of this auto rater. I happened to notice the biography template in the talk page wasn't assessed and rated. I just wondered if that was purposely ignored. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

fishhead2100 - The biography tag is rated as stub, before I updated. If you take a look at Template:WikiProject Biography, the Biography banner doesn't actually have an importance scaler, outside of task forces. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's all good. I was thinking was you didn't bother to rate the biography template. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lee Vilenski, my reason for believing that this company is deserving of a wikipedia article is due to the fact that it is at the fortune 500 level. It is such a large company in fact that it owns subsidiaries that have their own wikipedia articles (look at VWR) in fact, VWR actually owns subsidiaries that are considered worthy of wikipedia articles. Anyway, I do not really have any time to edit this article right now because I have things to do, but honestly I don't think it should be deleted. I know the article i made is not really good, I just don't have the time to write a good article about this, but hey a stub is better than nothing right? thanks for looking into this, I trust your judgement in the matter also, I made a few edits to the article to address some of the concerns you have, but just so you know, im not trying to promote avantor, they are actually kind of sucky if i am being honest - S C t h e e d i t o r talk c o n t r i b s 19:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

SCtheeditor - The issues with the articles is that it is not written in the style of Wikipedia. I'm surprised you don't have enough time to edit the article in question, but can edit this talk page on 16 occasions. Anyone can remove a WP:PROD, including yourself. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski - Thank for the update, haha, I guess you are right, I do have time, just not the attention span, Ive been experimenting with the color things in the source code and I've found it really fun. I'll take a look at the article for you, also, how can i change it to be in a more scholarly tone do you think? - S

SCtheeditor - Wikipedia main space is not the place to experiment with articles, or formatting. Please use your sandbox. Loads of issues with the prose in the article, firstly, there is no context. (The lead paragraph should state what the subject is. I had to read the whole article to realise this company produces chemicals?) You can't use WP:WEASEL words, such as "evolved", or phrases such as "much larger and better." You can't use amounts, or money such as in the final paragraph.

The article needs to be put into categories as well, and a lot else. I'd also suggest changing your signature, as it's beyond annoying to type through (And it fails WP's criteria for signatures). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski - ok, thanks, Ill look into all that, also, i did experiment with it in my sandbox, how do I put it into categories, also sorry about the signature, I made it in my sandbox yesterday and was just having a little fun with it, I think its kinda cool, but to clarify, im not trying to annoy you or anything, also thanks for the input, I really am just trying to figure all this stuff out so that I can be somewhat helpful SCtheeditor ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eddie Ryan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babyface (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)