View text source at Wikipedia
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. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2020 European Masters 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) 07:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article 2020 European Masters 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:2020 European Masters for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article 2020 European Masters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2020 European Masters 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have addressed the first 8 points of your "lede" section of criticism. I'll be going through the rest of your bullet points later today. Thank you for your feedback. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2020 German Masters 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) 07:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article 2020 German Masters 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:2020 German Masters for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article 2020 German Masters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2020 German Masters 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, thanks for making the updates to use FailedGA on the Talk page of those two GA nominations that you failed. I had to add in the topic field, which you'll want to be sure to include next time—basically, you copy the contents of the subtopic field from the GA nominee template to the topic field of FailedGA (or GA)—but otherwise everything's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The article 1985 World Snooker Championship 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:1985 World Snooker Championship for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Any pointers would help, as I am doing my final tweaking now before nomination for Good Articles. I assume I can use news clips for references as I have done on William Morrison (chemist) and Raymond W. Bliss extensively. Thanks for looking at them if you have time.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope some of the above is of use. With a GAN you just need to be very confident in the article, and that your prose and lede are tight. How it progresses will depend quite a lot on the reviewer. Having a copyedit done before you nominate is a very good way to tip the balance in the article's favour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
importScript("User:PleaseStand/highlight-comments.js");
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Snooker Shoot Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
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) 00:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Could you please clarify whether I was the user who you were talking about in this edit? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lee -- What I was trying to get at with my question is that you seem to me to be rather restricted in the range of articles that you generally edit. This might well be a false perception, as your expertise and mine don't seem to overlap at all! As an admin, I have dealt with my inability to get to grips with, say, NFOOTY by rarely if ever deleting articles on footballers, as I don't understand what exactly constitutes a claim of notability sufficient to meet A7. I'd like to solicit some thought from you as to how well you feel you understand, say WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or other specialised guidelines, and also whether – in the light of your understanding – you would feel comfortable as an admin dealing with deletions or similar relating to articles outside your normal editing milieu. Given that the RfA seems likely to succeed, it's more a 'please take this into consideration in future' note, than anything else. Best of luck, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 World Snooker Championship 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Lee Vilenski. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for 2020 Snooker Shoot Out at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
As we discussed can you take a look at Great Grain Robbery and help get it to GA status?
Best, FlalfTalk 18:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although all admins are welcome to delete constructively on Wikipedia, at least one of your recent deletions, such as the one you performed on the Main Page, did not appear to be constructive and has been undeleted. Please use Addy's user page for any test deletions or blankings you would like to make, and read about our main page deletion guideline to learn more about deleting things on this encyclopedia. Thank you. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations!
We think you recently made a boo-boo! So here is a mini "how to?" guide.
|
—usernamekiran (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 Antalya Open (pool) 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article 1985 World Snooker Championship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1985 World Snooker Championship 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Lee. Or I'm not really sure what to call you. Regardless, I know that the GA nomination for Crito is closed, but I've fixed the article with some of your suggestions since then. However, I'm still confused as to what you mean by some things.
I don't know what to add to the lede, because if I were to summarize every section in the article, it wouldn't sound right/literally be restating what's already been written.
For this one I am genuinely unsure what you mean, because I haven't ever seen a Wikipedia article with a citation for their IPA transcriptions. Even good articles like Yttrium just has it tucked to the side. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me where to find veritable sources for that.
Again, I'm genuinely unsure of what you mean here. It's a dialogue between two people but it's not something that Plato was there to write down. If that's what you mean, of course.
I mean no disrespect with this, I just want to know what else I can do to the article. I will be requesting copy-editing as soon as you respond. puggo (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to beat the lazy 'crats to the punch and offer my heartiest congratulations on your outstanding RFA. Don't forget to keep writing articles! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I write you because you wrote in this discussion "we simply cannot have bogus information pushed out in this way on this topic. The matter is clearly a massive driving force in the world right now - this is very likely to cause hysteria and effect the real world." I absolutely agree with this. So do my fellow editors in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada article -- where this sanction was just imposed, in spite of the fact that we had NO bogus information whatsoever. We were not even having any problems with bogus information. Sanctions were simply slapped upon the article on the simple basis that they were being slapped on everywhere COVID-related -- but all "everywhere COVID-related" on WP are not having problems with accurate information. We were having none at all.
(In fact, we were reaching good article class, possibly featured article class. How many country pages can say that? But don't take my word for it -- take a look for yourself.)
I happen to be one of the core editors in that article, having completely overhauled the structure and at this point written most of the existing wordage -- which is why others stepped up to protest the action on my behalf. Yes, I know that I can always become a registered member -- but it is specifically during times like these that defending the core pillars of WP becomes more important than ever. I am an IP. The edits of an IP are supposed to be of equal value to those of a member, judged on value, not simply on being an IP. Take a glance at our country's talk page, and ask yourself whether I have given at least equal value. Take a look at the history, and ask yourself also whether the kind of value I have given can by covered by a simple "edit request".
But set aside that this action on that article is essentially a slap in my face, imposed by an admin who had not even done any edits of that article. If you toss out WP's equivalent of a Bill of Rights in favour of heavy-handed action where it was not at all appropriate, let alone needed, then what value are those pillars?
I cannot speak up on a dedicated administrators' page, where consensus for this broad-based action was determined without anyone having considered that the stated problem might not be a universal problem in that subject. I can hope that at least some admins can recognize that since we had exactly ZERO problem with inaccurate information and a driving determination to get out the accurate information in the best way possible, ours is not a case where one size fits all. I can also hope that those admins have the independence of thought to recognize that there are exceptions where a sweeping action is completely inappropriate, and have the courage to develop a separate consensus on that basis. I do know that for you, as an admin, determining an exception to a sweeping rule is possible -- but only if individual people such as yourself are willing to consider it and pursue it. It is not the simple route -- that way lies one-size-fits-all justice -- but it is the WP moral route. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Congrats for becoming an admin! Apologies for being too late to give a support. IW. (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
Hello! I am hoping to renominate the MAX Red Line article for FAC. My previous attempt failed due to a lack of comments. Could I ask for your input in the nomination? I would greatly appreciate it. --Truflip99 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 UK Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Cahill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The article 2019 Antalya Open (pool) 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 Antalya Open (pool) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Since you created the "Professional wrestling title history middle" template I'm reaching out to you, as I'm beyond my technical capabilities here. It was pointed out that for the table to be Feature List level the table needs row and column scopes as per MOS:ACCESS and detailed in MOS:DTT. Basically all headers need to have tables scope="column" and the number/sort number needs to have scope="row". Mexican National Women's Championship#Reigns by combined length shows how that is done on a normal table. Could you help me get the scope parameter added to the title history templates? MPJ-DK (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 European Pool Championship 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) 18:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The article 2019 European Pool Championship 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 European Pool Championship for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on April 1, and will continue until the end of May. |