Jump to content

User talk:Rodney Baggins/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Discussion you may be interested in

There is currently a WP:RM discussion at Talk:2019 World Open (snooker), which may interest you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123 (Santa's Oven-Ready Brexit Centre) ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and a Cuban groove... and wishing that you may find a little traditional fun ...

Adverb

Hi Rodney, I'm interested in this word "digitally". It seems to be a standard -ly adverb in this disputed case, but I'm very happy to be shown otherwise. I see the same pattern between a new watch (adj/noun) and a newly bought watch (adv/adj/noun) on the one hand, and a digital watch (adj/noun) and a digitally configured watch (adv/adj/noun) on the other. Where am I going wrong? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ericoides, it's great to make your acquaintance and I appreciate that you're trying to get to the bottom of this in such an amicable manner, as I'm always fascinated in the intricacies of the English language! I'm in no way suggesting that you are "going wrong", on the contrary it's probably me that's wrong. Personally, I always think it's best to include a hyphen in compound attributive modifiers simply to improve clarity, and I'd even go so far as to argue against the MOS in this case that even "standard" -ly adverbs should use the hyphen.
For TPS benefit, we're talking about MOS:HYPHEN where it states "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy). In rare cases, a hyphen can improve clarity if a rewritten alternative is awkward..."
The real question is: what does the MOS actually mean when it refers to a "standard" -ly adverb? Is it implying that all -ly adverbs are considered to be standard by the very fact that they end in -ly, or does it mean that we are only dealing with "standard" -ly adverbs here (as in derived from common/generic adjectives like "new" or "whole"), while some -ly adverbs are "non-standard" (like our "digitally" which is a relative neologism)? That's the way I interpreted it but I may be reading too much into it... however, I do think the MOS itself is unclear. I can't find anything definitive on the internet, but you're right that "digitally configured" does tend to pop up more often than "digitally-configured". Like I said, please feel free to remove the hyphen in the MH370 article!
Kind regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Hope you don't mind I tweaked a dab link on your user page.
Thanks for your reply. I have a feeling that despite being a relatively new word, "digitally" must count as a standard -ly adverb. I see no good reason why it shoudn't . . . so I might remove that hyphen at some stage, but there's no hurry. And thanks, incidentally, for the dab tw on Besso, an article that does really stand in need of expansion. Again, maybe at some stage. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the link you said was not dead? The page says "The article you have been looking for has expired and is not longer available on our system. This is due to newswire licensing terms." —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 12:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Naddruf: Hi and thanks for contacting me. The original link is working fine for me and the BBC Sport article is coming up on my screen in glorious technicolour. That's because I live in the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to view the article from the USA via a newswire and their copy of the article has expired. The only way you can get access to it is to use a UK-based VPN because BBC is usually region locked to the UK. Presumably you'll eventually get the same problem with other BBC Sport refs once they've expired. I assure you I never revert someone else's edits unless I'm absolutely sure! Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

FA

Hi Rodney, hope you are well. I realise you've done a bit of copyediting on the article recently, but there is an FAC open for 2019 Champion of Champions, feel free to leave comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I'm working towards the FA. I thought I'd do a bit of copyediting first if that's ok with you, and I'm gathering my more general comments along the way which I'll put on the FA review page later. Once I've done that, I'll go back to the 2017 WSC article for you. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
yeah, no sweat. Thanks for the copyedits. You are of course encouraged to do so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
CoC looks like it'll pass with a little more input. Looking to startup again the 2017 World Championship article, as well as 2020 Master for FAC next up (after the GA review). Thanks for your help with this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Selby

Hi Rodney! I see you've been doing a bit of work on Mark Selby over the last couple days. I've marked some items as [citation needed]. I've also moved some refs from the lede. Hopefully that's of some use towards pushing it to GA in the future one day. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, yes I thought it was about time I looked at Selby's article seeing as he's one of my favourite players. I can do a bit more source searching tomorrow. I would really like to get this article to GA if possible, but is it more difficult to do that with living breathing BLPs than with inorganic events? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
well - it is - but if you look through my promotions I do have quite a few BLPs. The biggest issue is the sheer size of the career. There's a lot of WP:PROSELINE and WP:WEIGHT issues on these sort of items. Best bet is to fully cite what's there, then go through and cull non-important information. Get a copyedit and do a sweep and make sure there's nothing big missing. I'd suggest expanding his pool career a bit (I can do this), as a couple sentences describing a world champion (even if it was only blackball) isn't sufficient. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Rodney,

I never did reply to you from [1]. Thanks! I appreciate it. If you ever think of an RfA, it's quite the stressful week! I now have all the tools - it's quite the clutter. I don't think my ping of BennyOnTheLoose worked at the 2002 World Snooker Championship article worked, but he'd definately be the right guy to question about offline sources for snooker articles.

I do hope you are getting through this time ok! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Simulcasting

Hi, in 2020 Masters (snooker) it says "NowTV simulcasted the event in Hong Kong with additional commentary." Should it be "simulcast" rather than "simulcasted"? Also, do you think it's worth linking to simulcast? I'm unsure on both points. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Benny, I don't think "simulcasted" is a word, similar to the past tense of "cast", e.g. "I cast my net and caught some fish" not "I casted my net..." And yes it would be useful to link to the Simulcast article. I would change the text to: "The event was simulcast in Hong Kong by Now TV with additional commentary" and BTW I think NowTV should be Now TV with space and linked to new page name Now TV (Sky). Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Made changes, thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. It should link to Now TV (Hong Kong).Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

FAC Suggestion

Hi! Just to let you know that there is an FAC outstanding that you might be interested in. I appreciate any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lee, I've not been ignoring you, just a bit slow to respond sorry. Of course I can take a look through 2017 WSC for you, might not be until the weekend though. You may have noticed I've been chipping away at Mark Selby every so often, as I'd like to do a GA nom for that one at some point. Did you say you might be able to do some digging into his pool career? It could definitely do with a bit of expanding. I've also noticed that Shaun Murphy has had an update template at top for several months which doesn't look good as it's one of our GAs, so I'll get onto that soon too. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The Shaun Murphy article is in major need of expansion with current seasons (and a general cleanup). I fear if it were GARed, it wouldn't be renewed. there's a lot of press about Mark, specifically his runner-up spot at the Chinese 8-ball world championship. He also won the 2005 WEPF World Eight-ball championship [2], which is blackball; which you've probably seen. Blackball isn't really considered the height of pool disciplines. There's also this guardian article about him playing county pool and about his wife being an international (which could be expanded a bit).
Other than "being a former pool player", there's not much to say about Mark other than his two notable results mentioned above. In terms of WP:WEIGHT, no more than a paragraph or two is particularly suitable for his pool results, as his world title in 2005 won him £10,000 (which he regularly earns on bad results on the snooker scene), and his best result was his Chinese 8-ball runner up won him $49,000 (which would be the thing to expand). I am planning on quickly adding the Chinese 8-ball world championships articles to enwiki at some point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, Chinese eight-ball is very interesting. It's basically eight-ball played on a snooker table with tweaked rules.[3] It's the closest pool gets to snooker prizes (outside of buy-in challenge matches). Imagine snooker with bigger balls and a match timer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the Selby pool info, I'll take a look through it and see what I can do. I started going through the 2017 WSC for you and my first thought was: "this seems to be quite well worded, clearly written..." and then realised I did a full copyedit back in Dec/Jan (see edit history), ha ha!! But I'll do another pass through and put my comments on the FAC page as I expect a few things have changed since then. Will I still be able to support the article, given that I did quite a lot of work on it myself? Must admit I'm feeling increasingly depressed as we'd be knee deep in the 2020 champs from this weekend. Stay safe & keep smiling, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you should be fine. If you had a big ol' authorship of the article - probably not, but just copyediting should be fine. Did you see about the BBC coverage, btw? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh My God that passed me by!! Thanks for the link — Brilliant!! That has really cheered me up no end. I never did get a reply to that email I sent them but I'd like to think it helped their decision... Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft guidelines

say[4]- A civilian airliner, commuter, airtaxi or charter aircraft while carrying paying passengers, with minimum passenger seating capacity of 10 seats (8 passenger seats minimum prior to 1940'. The seating capacity for a Cessna 402 is eight. If you edit the list, you should know this info....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's sometimes difficult to make the call with these small aircraft. I had assumed the Cessna 402 had 10 passenger seats, but made an honest mistake. It was late at night, I was about to go to bed. I was addressing the fact that your previous edit said "Doesn't have an article" which isn't true and seemed unfair on the originator that you reverted. If you want me to stop editing the list, just say and I'll toddle off somewhere else. I have plenty other stuff to do! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"Doesn't have an article" isn't an unfair statement statement at all. The edit didn't link to an article when it is big red letters above the edit box that a WP article is provided. No article was linked to. This is a regular happening on this article, that I've made over 600 edits to, and at least 100 have to be the removal of entries without a link to a WP article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hate to be pedantic William, but the fact is it DID have an article, that's the whole point. The editor had just got the link wrong, hence I provided a pipe. Not worth arguing over anyway, I shall toddle off somewhere else as you clearly don't appreciate the work I've done so far. Better things to do, and all that! Like watching the snooker... (again many thanks for the heads up Lee!) Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

John Pulman

Hi i do not know how to add a source tbh. I usually ask other editors to help me when i give them the source. Neal Foulds tweeted a picture of this result from the crucible almanac it is clear to see. he is going through the book daily with different facts and stats. it is in the almanac. Regards 92.251.166.2 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually History of Billiards through its Champions Third part also goes into this. I personally don't think we should be including this, it isn't it's own competition; basically a losers competition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

>Very low pending changes backlog: 0 pages according to DatBot as of 13:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

My girl clock location

Just curious as to why you removed my edit for the location of the clock tower in the movie?

It is located in magnolia square in Sanford Florida, I work in the adjacent building and can confirm this is correct EnglishDave83 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) - what you know to be correct is irrelevant EnglishDave83. Wikipedia cares about what reliable sources say. Also, words such as "iconic" have no place on an encyclopedia Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@EnglishDave83: "The iconic clock" has absolutely no context because it is mentioned nowhere else in the article, but the main reason (as stated in my edit summary) is that you have not provided a source, per WP:OR. Just because you know it to be true does not mean that it can be included in Wikipedia, otherwise anyone could write anything and there would be no way of verifying any of it. Your previous edit, however, was backed up by the existing reference. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

why is me knowing it to be correct less relevant than you saying it’s not from a reliable source? I agree that “iconic” may be unsuitable but I do not agree that the location should not be added. How do I become a “reliable source”? EnglishDave83 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You are not, and cannot "become" a reliable source. We only care about what publications and such talk about. See our policies WP:V and WP:RS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
As Lee said, you can't "become" a reliable source, you can only "find" a reliable source, so that's basically what you need to do if it is important enough for further investigation. Is there a local newspaper or news site that's ever done a feature on the My Girl filming in your local area? I'm curious as to why this clock is iconic and what it has to do with the film. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is featured in the film and has become something of a tourist attraction in the city of Sanford, it is very recognizable as the clock from my girl EnglishDave83 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits without an edit summary

Hi there, thanks very much for helping out with pending changes :)

I noticed your revert of this revision of Dubai Creek Tower was done without an edit summary explaining the reversion. Whilst I was also about to revert it, I think it would have been helpful here to leave an edit summary. The revision in question wasn't undoubtedly vandalism - it might have been, but it also might have been in good faith, and WP:AGF of course applies. There was no reliable indication that the added website was the official site, and the website was empty, but that doesn't mean that the edit was necessarily vandalism.

Just wanted to leave that as a note for future reverts - hope it's useful feedback!

All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: Yeah, sorry about that, I very rarely make an edit without leaving an edit summary (see my user page: "Leave an edit summary"), but in this case I was pontificating over it for ages and basically didn't know what to put so I left it blank. I ended up reverting it via my Twinkle rollback facility, but I agree it probably wasn't vandalism. I tried the link and it just took me to a big picture of the tower, didn't appear to be an official website, but maybe it is? The URL would indicate that it is official, maybe they just haven't developed the site yet. Perhaps we could add it back in as a gesture of good faith (but it would need to be correctly linked in)? Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's probably necessary, as there is no indication that it's the official website - it might well be a domain squatter hoping that whoever is actually in charge of the tower pays up to buy the domain. WHOIS data wasn't helpful when I checked it either. For what it's worth, the revert summary I had written out (before I got a message saying it'd been reverted already - look who's speedy! ) was "Website contains no content, WHOIS gives no helpful information, no reliable indication that this is the actual website", which I thought roughly summarised the problem. No biggie, though :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, that's interesting. I hadn't heard of domain squatting before, although it makes sense if you're a malicious money-grabbing cyber nerd who's out to rip the whole world off (just playing devil's advocate here of course). I've learnt something new (and useful), so thanks for that. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

O'sullivan depression and addiction

Please only discuss in one location - see Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 May 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.

i never said they were in the bbc article, are you saying you never heard of his struggles ?. this is vital in his career needs to be added 80.233.102.21 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Peter Pan 1953 reverted

Why have you reverted my edit on Peter Pan 1953 page? There was nothing wrong in it, just facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.52.42 (talk)

Dear IP user, why do you keep asking people to explain things they've already explained? When Rodney Baggins reverted you, they left the following edit summary: WP:OR and unsourced. This is a succinct and accurate explanation of the problem with your edit. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason is the edit unsourced?

2020 Championship League – Event 2

Hi can you create a page for this event hearn announced for June 1st- June 11th ?. There are 64 players split into 16 groups of 4. The 16 group winners advance and are split into 4 groups of 4. These 4 group winners advance to the winners group. The format is Round-Robin and all matches are best of 5 frames. Can you help ?. Regards 92.251.237.108 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep I can certainly have a go. Got any good sources? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
And how does it relate to 2020 Championship League – Event 1? Could it not be incorporated into the existing article with separate sections per event? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No it is a seperate event. Hearn announced it last Saturday. it is called Championship League, as there has already been a Championship League we have to differenciate between the two events by calling them Event 1 and Event 2. You have the format for Event 2 right ?. 31.200.160.204 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we need significantly better sources talking about the event before the article should be made. We don't have a name for the event, all we know is where and when, and even that I only found on nom-RS. We certainly shouldn't be calling the other event (event 1). There's no rush to create an article with no sourcing, it's WP:TOOSOON unless there is sourcing I don't know about...Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


Lee i don't remember asking for your opinion or anything of the sort. Who are you to tell people what to do or what names to call events ?. The name of the event is Championship League. 80.233.33.220 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP user. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and as such I don't need permission to join into a discussion. As such we don't create articles based on non-reliable sources. Please read our policies on being WP:CIVIL when talking on Wikipedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This user, 92.251.237.108, keeps editing the 2019/20 snooker calendar to include this "possible" tournament, they seem to be under the belief that the event is 100% confirmed and airing on ITV, when they are zero sources confirming everything about the event, or where (if anywhere) it might air. They also keep renaming the 2019/20 Championship League to "2020 Championship League – Event 1" on multiple pages, when it was not known as that, and of course, the first half took place in 2019.
I agree with Lee, it's probably too soon and we need reliable sources. I'm happy to help but I don't appreciate Who are you to tell people what to do or what names to call events? on my Talk page which I think was totally out of order. If you're going to argue about it here then you can leave me out. The problem with operating on here as unregistered IPs is we cannot tell who you are and cannot address you properly. And IP hopping makes it even harder to identify who's who. Have you considered registering on Wikipedia? It's very easy to do and people will respect your opinion a whole lot more. 92.251.237.108 / 31.200.160.204 / 80.233.33.220 above — we cannot be certain if that's two or three different people, or maybe even just one. The least you could do is sign your posts with your real name before putting the four tildes. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rodney i have been proved right. Tournament information now on the World Snooker website announced this moment. can you create the page now please ?. regards 178.167.180.57 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Live on Itv only difference is matches are best of 4 frames. 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw 178.167.180.57 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven't "been proven right". The event was to be played, but Wikipedia doesn't write information on rumours, or from unreliable sources. We write items as and when the event meets our notability guidelines for being written about in reliable sources - not before. Once world snooker and other outlets comment on it, it is fair game. I have however, changed the event name to 2020 Championship League as that is the clear disambiguator for the event on the event website. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

who said your right to call it 2020 championship league ? 178.167.180.57 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


Assuming you are talking about this source: [5] — I still need to know how it relates to the existing Championship League article? Is it a completely separate event? Or should it be treated as the second of two events in the series for 2020? Lee might know the answer to that one? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, I can understand the excitement surrounding the rumours about this event, as it will be the first real snooker tournament we can enjoy in our living rooms for quite some time. Would you agree then that the new article would be called 2020 Championship League with the previous edition called 2019–20 Championship League and treated as two completely separate serial events with no "Event 1" or "Event 2" appendage? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yeah, looks like it's gonna be the next entry in the tournament, per [6]. So, 2018, 2019, 2019/20 and 2020. it's a bit confusing, as I'm sure world snooker hadn't planned to do it like this, but there you are. I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG though, but it wouldn't be the first article to be created too soon... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

they are both played in the 19/20 season. second one has to called Event 2 for clarity 178.167.180.57 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We have policies regarding naming items on Wikipedia. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. That means we use what sources call the topic in question to make our names. The tournament has never been called "event 2". As sourced above, it is being called "2020 Championship League", and will be the article title. I also left you a WP:3RR warning on your talk page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

no you are the only one calling it 2020 championship league no sources for that name. 178.167.180.57 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? I put a link to a source using exactly that earlier Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I can probably create this article now I have four sources: [7][8][9][10] (but that last one has no data in it yet). We still have the question of what to call it. World Snooker are just calling it Championship League "with exciting new format". ITV are calling it Championship League Snooker. championshipleaguesnooker.co.uk are calling it 2020 Championship League. Nowhere is "Event 2" mentioned. Personally I think 2020 Championship League would be fine, with the previous event called 2019–20 Championship League, unless anyone has any better ideas. The fixtures have not been released yet but I would expect to see that very soon considering that the event starts in ten days' time. ITV scheduling is still to be announced. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Just building it up in my sandbox2. Just found these sources: [11] [12] so it's definitely not too soon now... Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Hi there, the 2020 Championship League article was created by User:Jamiecameron00 on 23 May. It currently has no Talk page because it's still waiting to be assessed. Do you know how long that will take? There's a bit of an argument going on via edit summaries at the moment re. round-robin capitalisation and I wanted to put something on the Talk page but found there was none! I'm also concerned that an anonymous unregistered IP (oh how I love them) has added an unsourced statement about how the group placements are determined in the event of a tie and I wanted to bring that up on the Talk page. You wouldn't happen to know of any good sourcing for round-robin snooker tournaments would you? I've never really come across them before. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we actually have quite a few issues with OR and sourcing on tournaments that haven't actually happened yet. I don't usually get involved with fixing it unless it is really bad or it's the worlds. It also comes into the same issues as we do with some of our live updates where people post up draws an such based on how the rankings are based pre-tournament.
Any editor can add an article assessment (I use a script to do it, but it's easy to do manually by adding {{WikiProject Snooker|class=|importance}}), but I'll do it for this one. You can also just add a new talk page and post without an assessment. I would suggest for sourcing the tiebreakers that we could use any past example, as the CL is very unlikely to change its rules year on year without mentioning it. I would use snooker.org once the event starts to get the results and tables though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that Lee. I hadn't realised anyone could do it. I thought the article had to be assessed first by a new pages reviewer or an admin (such as yourself!) Looking forward to the snooker next week Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing and assessing are two different things! The first is a mechanical thing that effects the page being indexed on google, and other things. Assessing is something done by an editor and is completely optional, and more for wikiproject sorting. FWIW, I have also patrolled the page. You can get a WP:AUTOPATROLLED permission so that all of your new articles no longer need to be patrolled, but this is usually given to users who create lots of articles that are of a decent quality. Surprisingly, for the Championship League, this will likely have quite a bit of coverage, so should be a pretty well made article by the end. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Barry Hearn announced on his twitter the highest break made in the group would determine the positions 89.204.185.61 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't finished yet ... Higgs boson article

I hadn't yet finished revisions on the Higgs boson article, and the last section had two notational errors: using the same symbol (µ) in one formula for two different things (a Higgsian mass parameter and a co-ordinate index); and a summed index-pair (‘a’) both raised (one should be up, the other down, either way is good). So I felt I had to fix those. Most of the rest of the changes are trivial typesetting conventions, e.g. when the a letter (like ‘W’ in the article) names the particle, or serves as a name / label subscript (like mW), it's supposed to be in Roman type, but when that same letter represents the particle's wave function it's italics.

Anyway, I'm finished now, so you may want to go back and re-revert the changes I made after un-reverting your first revert.

And although I don't want to make a bother for you, I try to deliberately make lots of small changes while I'm reading through an article. I've run into disasters where an entire day's work of changes, all done to be updated in one go, got wiped out because someone else submitted a change while I was off checking citations. (When you ask for a preview, it doesn't report that you're now working on an old copy. That only comes with an update.) And for the most part, I'm planning on not coming back to an article: I'm only passing through, to check on something in some science news website, and noticed something while reading through the article. Rather than gritting my teeth and moaning, it's simpler to just tweak the math notation (sometimes nothing more than changing fonts with 'mvar') while I'm reading. (My graduate advisor was the editor of a planetary sciences journal, Icarus, and burned proper notation into me while I was preparing my thesis. Now it's almost automatic.)

So that's my side of it; I'll think some more about how to avoid overworking editors, such as yourself. In the meantime, if it seems good to you, revert the changes that you don't want to review.107.77.165.34 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for coming back to me. It sounds like you know what you're talking about so I see no reason to revert any of your new edits, but as the article has pending changes protection it is advisable to tread carefully and not make too many edits all in one go. It looks like User:Polyamorph has accepted them now anyway so no worries. Might I suggest that you become a fully registered user on Wikipedia? That way your edits will be automatically confirmed after a few days and you won't have to wait for them to be reviewed and accepted. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

1985 World Snooker Championship FAC

Hi Rodney, I hope you are well! There is an FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive2 that you may be interested in. Have a great weekend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll wander over and take a look. Well done on the 2017 FA and thanks for helping out with the 2020 Championship League article. You have a good weekend too, although weekdays, weekends, they all seem pretty much the same at the moment! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I've been working through all this, so I've had less time than usual, actually (though my numbers don't reflect that). I have two FACs open, feel free to comment whenevers Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Soldiers of Odin 'type edit'

Please discuss on relevant Talk page - see Talk:Soldiers of Odin. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:21, 3 June 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 Rodney,

Thanks for looking over my edit, however I am not sure I fully understand your decision toward it.

I had a bit of a random browse around other wikipedia pages and there seemed to be no consistency in "type". Many organisations with identified leaning on a political spectrum have their leaning mentioned under type. Perhaps there is a wiki guideline I am unaware of that outlines how type should be written out. Regardless I don't think the classification of the organisation of 'hate group' falls outside your parameters. A hate groups doesn't imply specific affiliations, it is merely a classification in of the groups that promote hate.

Thank you for the source rescue. However upon reviewing that specific source it seems to me to be questionable. I did some further research into whether or not the statement substantiated and have come up with nothing. I cannot find it listed on any official database as a registered NGO. I believe more substantial evidence is needed to define the group as such. I will keep looking for better evidence but until then I feel it is dishonest and potentially misleading to describe it as so.

I will thus remove the identification of it as an NGO, until a more reliable source can be found, and I will reinstate my edit identifying it as hate group. It has been identified as such by both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Centre. Both of these organisations are internationally recognised and are dedicated to the identification of this type of group. For now I will leave out the identification of the group as 'far-right extremist organisation', until you can return to me with information that falls outside what is meant by "type".

Thanks for your help editing,

OrlaNiBradaigh (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Snooker FA

Hi Rodney!

Long time, no comment. How are you? I hope the wonderful world is treating you well! I saw you've done some copy-edits to snooker and I wondered if you had any thoughts about a potential FAC push for it? I think it needs some general cleanup, but as you know copyediting is not my strongest suit!

I was also looking at taking Mark Selby to GA soon - I know you were working on it recently - do you have any ideas on improvements?

I do have two FACs outstanding, which if you do get any time, I'd always appreciate your comments.

I hope you are well Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, yes long time no comment. I'm good thanks, but I was getting a bit bogged down and needed to go off and do other things. My watchlist was getting so huge and was mostly snooker articles, so I just wiped the whole thing out and started again (it soon fills up again though doesn't it!) The world championship has piqued my interest again, but I'm absolutely hating the empty Crucible and the fake applause, it's just such a damn shame. Selby looked so utterly miserable in his first round match, I could have wept.
Anyway, I'm on board with everything you said above. An FAC on the Snooker article might be interesting. It would have to be spot on, with it being the main article for the project. I will get back to Mark Selby in due course, not forgotten about it... And yes I will take a look at your outstanding FACs. I take it you're talking about the 2020 Tour Championship and the 1986 World Snooker Championship? It's really good to hear from you – I hope you too are well? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
That's right - I agree that the snooker article needs to be bang on to really be a FAC. I am indeed talking about those articles.
The fake applause is rather sad - we didn't need it at the 2020 Tour Championship, which was a belter! I am very well, just collecting a series of GANs together right now, but updating the WSC article as I go. Sometimes it's not all that easy! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious

proofreading with love

Thank you for enhancing the quality of articles such as 2019 World Snooker Championship (today's featured article), National Ice Centre, Royal Blood (band) and the Timeline of Welsh history baby, for helping the "living, breathing, self-checking encyclopedia", - cats'-names user, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2432 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mark Selby

Hi Rodney, do you have any objections to me doing some edits and then putting up Selby for GAN? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely no objections to that at all! It's been on my To Do List for ages and I've been slowly chipping away at it but it would probably be best if you pushed the GAN forward. It would be absolutely marvellous to see Selby's article promoted. If you want to put me down as co-nominator, I can help with any changes needed to get it through. Unfortunately things have been quite tough around here recently so I've not been hugely motivated to get on with any "hard work". A couple of things to point out about the article... There are still a few outstanding [cn] tags, e.g. "He began his career in 1998 on the UK Tour" → I absolutely can't find any evidence of this, maybe you will have more success looking for something? Also, at end of 2018–19 season: "This was the first time in eight years that Selby did not end the season as world number one" → I think this is probably blatant WP:OR so should just be removed altogether. The other thing of course is that I was going to expand the Pool career section but haven't got round to it yet. I know you gave me some notes to help with that, so if you like I can take a look at that this weekend, unless you want to throw something together and I can copyedit it? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, that was the plan! I can make some changes, especially the outstanding citations needed and then chuck it to GAN if you don't mind a CE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, that's great. I'll go through your feedback on the 2020WSC FAC today and add my support. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Hi, I see you've dealt with the [cn] tags and put the Selby article up for GAN, which is great. I really hate to point this out, but I think the source you've added for "He began his career in 1998 on the UK Tour" is a circular reference. If you look at this version of the Selby article from around the same time as the RKG Snooker article, the copy is word for word exactly the same, even down to the minor errors, e.g. "more than 450 Century breaks" with capital 'C' in lead. Either someone at RKG Snooker copied the info in directly from Wikipedia, or the other way round, but the latter is highly unlikely as the wiki article had been slowly evolving over a period of 10 years. This is a bit concerning as RKG Snooker have presented this as their own work, with Copyrights © 2017 RKG Snooker at bottom of article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Poop, I see. I'll see what I can do. I have noticed that most sources just comment on him winning the English Under 15s, which might be worth swapping around as there's nothing linking him to the UK Tour, and at least this is a tournament victory. [13] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Congrats

Hi Rodney,

I just wanted to pop by and say well done for making it to 15,000 edits. It's quite the achievement. I'm taking a little time off from content creation (the wikicup has taken a bit out of me), but I'll be back ready to improve more articles soon. I thought we could work together on promoting all of the WSC winners, starting with those that won it more than once. To that end, Mark Williams, John Higgins and Stephen Henry seem like the most obvious targets. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lee, I hadn't noticed that. I tend to go by the mainspace edits which is currently about 13,000. Considering that you've been on here just a few months longer than me, you've done 3 times as many edits so I think you're the one who should be congratulated! How do you ever find time to do anything else? I must admit it's quite an addictive hobby and the first thing I do every day is check my watchlist...!
As for the BLPs, I was thinking along the lines of promoting world number one players, starting with Judd Trump as he's currently at the top. Also Neil Robertson, John Higgins, Mark Williams. I think Stephen Hendry is a very important one that should be sorted out ASAP, and not forgetting the great Ray Reardon. I also want to check over the existing BLP good articles, e.g. Steve Davis and Ding Junhui. So it's just a question of time and priority. The most important ones for me would be Trump, Hendry, Reardon and Higgins, but not necessarily in that order. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree with those as the main targets. I'm a big Hendry fan, and his article makes my soul hurt. As an FYI, I don't get much else done, but I do frequent the wikipedia WP:DISCORD! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


@Lee Vilenski: Is it too early to congratulate you on winning the Wiki Cup?? If not.....................

Congratulations on winning the Wiki Cup!!
So you'll be taking some time off for Rest & Recuperation over Lockdown 2.0?

Best wishes, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to be taking a month off from content creation; work on some other projects. It was super competitive. 8 FAs, 2 FLs, a GT and around 60 GAs throughout the competition. That last round I had 5 featured items and 30 Good articles, and still only won by 50 points! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Niger

MOVED
Please discuss on Niger Talk page, thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:33, 9 November 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 Rodney, I would like to point out that in official United Nations documents, the simple form of the Republic of the Niger is the Niger, not Niger.

Source: http://www.onu-missionniger.org/mission/

From what I have read, most people have been using the word Niger incorrectly. The correct way to use this word is as follows:

Niger: the Niger River Basin (a geographic feature in West Africa)

The Niger: the Republic of the Niger (a West African country)

The Niger River: the principal river of West Africa

Informally, the region of West Africa can be referred to as Niger (most of the West African countries have territories on the Niger River Basin).

A similar example is the word Sudan:

Sudan: the region of Sudan (an inland region in West Africa, south of the Sahara)

The Sudan: the Republic of the Sudan (a Northeast African country)

The Sudans: the geographic region covering the area of modern-day countries of South Sudan and the Sudan. 120.16.92.71 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The opening sentence of the Niger article explains that the official name for the West African country is the Republic of the Niger, but it is generally referred to as Niger or the Niger. The title of the article is "Niger" per Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy, and the country is consistently called "Niger" throughout the article. This convention has also been used in the Niger River article, presumably to avoid confusion because the river itself is commonly referred to as "the Niger".
Accordingly, your edit to the Niger River article introduced a confusion that was (1) not explained to the reader and (2) inconsistent with later references to Niger (country) in the rest of the article. I reverted your edit to restore the stable version before you introduced the confusion. If you feel strongly about the naming conventions that have been adopted, then I suggest you bring up your concerns on the relevant Talk page, not here on my Talk page. Kind regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand what you said. Other countries which have the definite article "the" before their names (e.g. the Netherlands, the Philippines, the United Kingdom etc.) all have their article titles in their the-less form, but in the running texts, "the" has always been included as a part of their country names. Only two countries, The Bahamas and The Gambia, have the definite article "The" (capital T) in both their article titles and running texts, because both countries see the presence of the definite article "The" in their country names as an important symbol to distinguish their modern countries from their colonial pasts. However, most people don't understand that, and they probably wouldn't care about knowing more about these little-known Third World countries either. That's why you see lower case "the" before Bahamas and Gambia, and no "the" before Niger and Sudan in various articles all across Wikipedia, but a lot of people doing it wrong doesn't mean it's right. There is no reason for us to stick to something which is wrong.
As I've explained in my previous post, Niger is the geographic region encompassing the Niger River Basin and an informal word for West Africa, the Niger is the country whose formal name is the Republic of the Niger, and the Niger River should always be written as the Niger River to avoid confusion (unlike other rivers, such as the Nile, which doesn't have this problem). I am not a skilled computer user, I don't know how to do mass edit to the running text of an article, so I can only edit what I've seen. As for raising the issue in the talk page, I am not interested at all. Wikipedia isn't like before, nowadays, there's little engagement from the community. Most discussions in the talk pages lack participation from other editors. You can write a lengthy explanation to state your point of view and get no response after several months. Sometimes, you might receive one or two reponses, but no consensus can be reached. Your discussion can stay open in the talk page forever because no one is bother to close it, so you have wasted your time discussing the issue. 120.16.92.71 (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moscow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moscow Airport. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of soap opera villains

Hi, it seems you accepted an edit at the page above. Just so you know, I accepted an edit that reverted the edit that you accepted, since the IP editor pointed out that the source actually didn't call the character a villan. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, thanks for letting me know. I'm not exactly invested in this type of content as soap operas leave me cold, but the source did refer to his "bad boy past" and current "bad boy" storyline (whether or not the fans approve) so I assumed that qualified him for the article. Don't be surprised if others try to reinstate him in the list. But not me. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry December


Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Lee Vilenski: Belated thanks for that! Wishing you a Merry January... whatever the new year holds in store for us all, I hope it is kind to you and yours. And I guess you'll be starting work on the 2021 Wiki Cup tomorrow then. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh blimey, the cup! You'll see I'll coast on through and make a valiant effort in the final two rounds (if I get that far). Likely working on some new projects, but will be nice to compete.
Have a fantastic new year and a great 2021. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodney_Baggins/Archive_2&oldid=1016749875"