Wikipedia

User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 6

< User talk:Lepricavark
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Lepricavark in topic Who is this person
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

{{Annual readership}}

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

May I ask why you are indiscriminately adding {{Annual readership}} to a bunch of articles? You added it to Talk:Dan Jilek, which had zero (0) page views over the last month, with his actual article only receiving 97 views over the last month. Who is this helping and what is the point of adding the template to the talk page? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: The readership information is interesting and helpful in giving us guidance as to which articles are of greater interest to readers. Some editors may choose to devote more of their efforts to improving articles that receive higher page counts. I see no harm, and some utility, in adding the readership data to an articles talk page. Do you see any harm in it? Cbl62 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
My thinking is similar to Cbl62's. I actually observed him adding the template to pages and asked him about it before doing it myself. Lepricavark (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The indiscriminate addition of any template to talk pages without prior consensus can be viewed as disruptive. Similar to {{Talk header}}, {{Annual readership}} should only be added where it can be useful (i.e. highly edited articles). It should not be added to every article in a category/list, which is what it appears you, Lepricavark, were doing. In all of 2019, Talk:Dan Jilek received 5 page views! I understand it being added to articles like Talk:Abraham Lincoln, but who is it helping by being added to Talk:Dan Jilek? I am going to edit {{Annual readership}} documentation page with language matching {{Talk header}} to make this clearer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
After reading my comment above, I wanted to make it clear that I'm not saying what you were doing was disruptive, Lepricavark. My purpose was to inquire as to why you were adding the template to articles that had minimal or no viewership. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That's reasonable. I'll try to restrict my future addition of the template to articles that are likely to have significant readership. Lepricavark (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Lepricavark. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
If you aren't aware, there is a pageview tool that you can use to better analyze pageviews of any article on Wikipedia here. You can also turn on a Gadget that adds a link to this tool under the title of every article on Wikipedia (Preferences >> Gadgets >> Appearance >> XTools). Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Even more tedious tasks!

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Lepricavark, I've asked User:Primefac to run a bot to correct the #-signs on the college football standings templates. He thinks it's doable, so I would hold off on correcting any more of those manually. However, I have plenty of other less-botable tasks related to college football standings templates. Let me know if you are game to help some more. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads' up. You can share more tasks if you like, but I can't promise anything as I've been reducing my overall time spent on Wikipedia. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I renamed a a few hundred standings templates to make them more consistent, replacing acronyms and abbreviated names with the full name of the conference. These templates need some associated cleanup. See my last edit at Template:1956 Southeastern Conference football standings for an example. First off, the first field in CFB Standings Start need to match the template name. Second, in CFB Standings End, "non-BCS-champ=yes" should be replaced with "conf-champ=yes". Lastly, the categories need some cleaning up. I'm trying to get the categories for these templates all ordered and with the category sort keys as you seem them in the 1956 SEC example. I've already done the Big Ten and I'm working on the SEC, but there are few more conferences that need this sort of cleanup:

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for the heads up and thanks for calling attention once again to the pernicious nonsense that goes on in that article. Chisme (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. The nonsense never ends. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
PunjabCinema threatened me on my Talk page. What should I do about this? Chisme (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Just mention it in the thread at ANI. Punjab just signed their own indef-warrant, so to speak. I've been subject to similar comments from prior Chahal whitewashers and I'm fairly confident that these threats are meaningless. Lepricavark (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
They blocked him indefinitely. I am mystified why so many come here to white-wash the Gurbaksh Chahal article. If you were to make a list of blocked Wiki editors who crashed and burned in the name of burnishing Chahal's reputation, the list would probably come to two-dozen names. Yet the man is a batterer, a domestic abuser, a beater of women. He was lucky in 2013 that the video tape of him beating his girlfriend 117 times in a half-hour was deemed inadmissible in court (the cops wrongly seized the tape). Why do they flock to his article to try to white-wash it? I don't think all of them are paid. I should make a list of editors banned for making nonsense at the Gurbaksh Chahal article and post it on the article's Talk page as a warning. Anyhow, thanks as usual for your help and encouragement. Chisme (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
My theory is money. And I think somebody has quite a temper. If there is anymore bullying, I recommend contacting T&S.-- Deepfriedokra 17:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How 'bout the ones that gave up after one or two edits?-- Deepfriedokra 17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

re -TBC:WT:MLB

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello: I have been doing these (-TBC links) but Yankees10 is putting them back in by reverting. Any input you would have regarding this subject and could respond to in the discussion on their talk page would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. —Doug Jimmiefoxx (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I weighed in at his talk page. FWIW, you don't necessarily need to remove the leftover TBC links since they aren't actually visible within the articles. Lepricavark (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Many thanks!! Jimmiefoxx (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Redundant short descriptions

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Thank you for your work to improve the use of short descriptions in Wikipedia.

I noticed you added {{short description|Wikimedia list article}} to many pages whose titles clearly indicate they are a list, such as List of driver deaths in motorsport. Wikipedia:Short description says Duplication of information already in the title is to be avoided..

Please consider changing the short descriptions you added to something useful, or removing it if a useful description cannot be found. For example, List of driver deaths in motorsport can say "Notable driver deaths, excluding motorcycles." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, davidwr. I have been adding that particular short description because I had seen that it was frequently being added to other list articles. I was unaware that such descriptions were problematic. I'm not sure it's a worthwhile use of anyone's time to add a customized short description for each list article, given that most list article titles are self-explanatory. A generic description is preferable to none at all because otherwise we are forced to rely on descriptions from Wikidata, where vandalism is far more likely to go undetected. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That idea is one worth considering. However, doing things like this on a wholesale basis should not be done without community support. I recommend opening a discussion at either short descriptions or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to build a consensus to do this kind of pre-emptive "mass override." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The use of short descriptions has already been discussed at length. You can see a list of these discussions at Wikipedia:Short_description#Background/overview. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Just an FYI. See here which will lead to other discussions re: this topic. Cheers!--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please be aware that your signature has misplaced its </small> tag, which causes missing HTML tags lint errors, and if your signature appears more than once in the same article, it also causes Multiple unclosed formatting tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|talk</small>]]) : LEPRICAVARK (talk)

to

[[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) : LEPRICAVARK (talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, how embarrassing! Thank you for alerting me to this problem; I've implemented your suggested change. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for doing all the list edits. LoreMaster22 (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated! LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions on "List of highways numbered..."

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no need to add a short description to these articles since a more specific one is provided by {{Road index}}.– BrandonXLF (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, right you are. Thank you for letting me know. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Malcolm Norwood (runner)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! Hope this day finds you well! I'm trying to create a page for Malcolm Norwood (runner). He is a national champ for Australia, but I'm having a hard time lifting the page from draft space. Could you take a look at it?

I'm not very good at evaluating drafts, but I'll take a look within the next few days and see if I can be of any assistance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski Draft Deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I saw your comment on Kulinski Draft MfD and understand your viewpoint. That might have been the case earlier, but in the edits yesterday and today, the mentions on CNN, Fox, Vice, Guardian etc are substantial. Please see my comment at the bottom on MfD. I hope you will reconsider. Viktorpp (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding this edit: then fix the documentation for the template, which specifically states "Input 1: A for "RfA" or B for "RfB"." ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I would, but I discovered after my revert that somebody has MFD'ed the new RFB table, so I'll wait and see what happens with that. My apologies if my edit summary seemed a bit rude; that wasn't my intent. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
No problem. The template was recently split off from the original one, and I hadn't been aware of that change. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To add a company name in list of indian noteable companies

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello sir. 

   I am antrishk tiwari. The founder and MD. of EXPERT CLEANER LTD COMPANY. This company is a indian company which provide a Consumer services in across the india, the head office is in kota,rajasthan, india. This company found in 2019.

Please update my company name in indian noteable companies name list. Contact me if you need any other information. Wecare@expertcleaner.in +91-9549992022 Antrishk (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia list article

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi there, Lepricavark. I'm impressed with your throughput over the past few days. I have noticed you have been through a huge number of list articles, systematically adding "Wikipedia list article" for the short description. I have mentioned this on Wikipedia_talk:Short_description. You might like to respond there.--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I've changed a few of those, as that doesn't describe the article. i.e. 'List of Thomas Jefferson memorials' not to 'Wikipedia list article' but 'Thomas Jefferson memorials'. Am I wrong, and all list articles have the same short description? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, my personal philosophy is that 'Wikipedia list article' is sufficient given that the title should be self-explanatory. Right now, the objective is to add as many as possible so that we will hit a threshold where we no longer carry over short descriptions from Wikidata, which is unreliable. However, I have zero objections if you or anyone else replaces my generic description with something more specific. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That comes from my lack of knowledge of what simple Wikipedia is, so as long as it shows the title. I never look at the net on mobile, and am not a fan or even knowledgeable about wikidata, I just stick to Wikipedia and sometimes comment when Commons wants to banish perfectly good images. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of Wikidata either, simply because it's far too easy for vandalism to go undetected there. We certainly don't want their undetected vandalism to bleed over to this site. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
+1 to the unimpressed camp - If given the choice I'd rather not have a short desc for lists at all if that's the best we can come up with. I sort of get the self-explanatory thing but still IMHO list shortdescs should still be personalised as opposed to just generic crap. –Davey2010Talk 20:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
While I certainly respect both you and your opinion, I really don't see the need for personalization. If a list title isn't self-explanatory, the article needs to be renamed. And the absence of any description at all opens the door to Wikidata vandalism finding its way onto our site. But, as I've said before, anyone is free to overwrite my generic description with something more specific. What I'm doing is a start, but it doesn't have to be final. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Having read the discussion linked above as well as your reply your way does make a lot more sense, At the time it did just seem like generic crap but having read the discussion I've realised it's not so my apologies for labelling your edits as that, When using shortdesc on lists I've always just copied the title which looking back I guess actually doesn't make any sense at all....,
Thanks for replying anyway, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Happy editing to you as well. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia list article"

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This is not a helpful short description, please do not add it again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, this has been discussed ad nauseum both above on my talk page and at other threads linked in those discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
So don't restore it. It's a pointless and useless description, just as much as "Wikipedia article" would be on any article. Do a proper description, or leave it blank instead of placing something useless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is a point which I already provided in the above thread which has a nearly identical title. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Then you leave me with little choice but to take this to AN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, there were plenty of other choices. Ever heard of civil, polite, respectful conversation? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding this comment: I'm not sure what inconsistency you are referring to. In the diff in question, the editor added a second level list item following a first level list item, preserving the same style for the first level list item, which is as it should be for accessibility purposes. If you are referring to the actual contents of the diff, I don't really see how it applies. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, I think what EEng had in mind was the fact that RexxS was using the same kind of paragraph break for which they chastised BHG. However, the issue is a bit confusing and it may be that I've misunderstood. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the two disputants were talking at cross-purposes, with BrownHairedGirl referring to the start of a new list item within the same list as a paragraph break, whereas RexxS was referring to the start of a new HTML paragraph element as being a paragraph break. Unfortunately, even though it was only a side point to the main issue (namely, what steps does the community accept in enforcing poorly-understood guidelines for accessibility), it triggered the parties to escalate their accusations of lying. (For what it's worth, here's my essay on wikitext list markup.) isaacl (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it didn't seem as though there was a whole lot of listening going on. That's often the problem when this sort of thing happens. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Revive the article

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear;

The List of ATK players has duplicated the actual content published at List of ATK (football club) players and has not done anythin' before that of. As the article is supposed to merge with it in order to avoid duplication. The authors simply pasted the materials and devoid the initial article List of ATK (football club) players usin' redirection and devastin' the actual published content.The appeal is urge deletion of this article and profound sustain of List of ATK (football club) players as it also include the article List of ATK (football club) Overseas players by the same author whereas List of ATK players is just a mere stub that doesn't enlist even more tham 3 players of the first season before the appeal of merger that one can access using the contributions and editin' history. List of ATK players is profound (upto 99.9%) duplication of the content of List of ATK (football club) players. Anyhow the author of List of ATK (football club) players managed to revive the article. The user is usin' his might immorally.

I would love if you will furnish the views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ATK (football club) players


Regards,

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cube in baseballstats template

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. The removal task of articles with existing value parameters has been completed. How do we get this removed from the templates now (some people were still adding values, a few weeks ago)? Thank you!! Jimmiefoxx (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I just saw that Bagumba removed it. Sorry for the erroneous question. Jimmiefoxx (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimmiefoxx, no worries. I was wondering what you meant. Thank you for all your diligent work in clearing out those parameters. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion/Request

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please add the conflicts in Macedonia, Presheva, Medvegja and Bujanovc that happened in 2001 in this topic:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Albania

In the post-cold war era category.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianitialbania (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with that subject. I'd recommend that you place your request on the article's talk page instead so that you get can input from editors who are more well-versed in the topic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Who is this person

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who is this person and why can’t we see it Maokn (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know who you are asking about. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lepricavark/Archive_6&oldid=950097223"