User talk:力

• If I did something, please start a conversation here.
• I generally reply inline to comments posted here, and only rarely use {{replyto}}.
• I am aware of the General Sanctions involving crypto-currencies and professional wrestling. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, 力,

I saw your active edits on an article and I thought to myself, "Who the heck is this person, whose name I can't pronounce?" Now that I've read your User page (which has some great advice regarding ANI & RFAs, by the way), I guess I missed your identity change in the spring. I'll just learn to cut & paste your username unless I can just call you "Power". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

More Power to 力! חזק ואמץ warshy ^(¥¥) 15:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I left "power~enwiki" in the sig for a reason ... Anyhow, it's pronounced "Li", but differently than the Chinese surname "Li". And it, roughly, means "power". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Li, then, that I can pronounce. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Vital article votes: Biographies

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.

---

Since you were also active in suggesting that we remove some of the writers from the vital articles list, do you have any thoughts on the current slate of removalsZelkia1101 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'll take a look at the last batch later this week. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:30, 12 October 2021 (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.

Capitalization of Go

I saw your comment on Talk:Mirror Go. I'd like to invite you to comment on this Wikiproject discussion. I'd like to establish a clear consensis on the project and then advocate amending the guidance at MOS:GAMECAPS to clarify the 'Go' is an exception. This topic comes up far too often. We need established policy to refer to. Coastside (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coastside: I recommend you wait until that discussion closes and then ping all the participants to a follow-up discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

re DRV

The only thing that that discussion is becoming is "unreadably long"; and canvassing by selectively pinging people is not going to help. As for your argument, merely saying "this is not OR" without actually presenting a coherent argument about it is like saying "Keep - meets GNG" without identifying any source which actually meets it. Mysteryman's comment is "My response to the first concern is that every list and institution uses different criteria for what counts, so we should use the most expansive definition of affiliation out there." - in other words, "there are different criteria, so we should take a stance [something which is actually against NPOV] and select one and write the list based on that criteria of our own choosing [which is indeed OR]". Tired's comment is " It's also not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR as no immediate conclusions are reached (a criteria for those tags)." - something which makes no sense, because listing somebody as "affiliated with institution X" is obviously a conclusion of some form. Andrew's comment was properly rebutted at the discussion. You don't like the outcome. Fine. Making the same arguments at the DRV as at the AfD, however, does not help, as DRV is not about whether an article is suitable but whether the closer correctly assessed comments and ignored those which had no solid basis. No valid argument has been given to show that ignoring comments about the red herring of notability is wrong, or that ignoring those who merely assert something without providing any reasoning to back it up is wrong. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

re. canvassing: Tiredmeliorist has indeed not commented on the DRV... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I do like the outcome; that page was terrible. I don't like the process. Neither the votes nor the strength of argument in the discussion supported deletion. Yet you keep banging on the table. There is no reasonable WP:OR argument to delete; I could have made 3 arguments to delete and wouldn't have suggested it. (Argument number 4 would have been WP:SYNTH which is technically part of WP:NOR but generally invoked differently).
To overcome a 19-6 vote, there has to be a clear policy-based argument, and there simply isn't one. You say "ignore the vote" with one hand, and "respect the vote" with the other. I will continue to argue that the close was bad until my arguments are fully made. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not 19-6 if you ignore the red herrings about notability. The arguments about original research were quite clearly stated, something to the effect of "this is a page which is based on original criteria (which, more often that not, match few if any of the reliable sources on the topic) for its content."; or "an article which blatantly does not follow them [reliable sources] and is instead creating its own criteria for who is affiliated to which university". The argument against was basically "but there are sources!", entirely ignoring that the article did not follow such sources. That was correctly disregarded by the closer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What are those reasons that would lead to a delete vote for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The page isn't an encyclopedia article, it is a database query. Roughly, it is a WP:NOT violation.
2. It's not a notable cross-categorization as a collective. While schools talk about how many Nobel laureates they have individually, nobody (except for school partisans) really discusses or cares if University of Michigan has more than University of Minnesota.
3. WP:TNT - the page is long and ugly. Any list where both the top (split into per-school articles) and bottom (split to the obviously MOS-noncompliant title List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II) need to be cut off is too bloated to serve as a useful navigational aid.
4. We shouldn't be grouping separate Nobel disciplines together. The three hard science Nobels function fairly similarly, but Literature and Peace are generally not awarded to university faculty, and Peace is awarded to organizations which may have staff at multiple universities. And the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences really shouldn't be grouped with them at all.
5. The numbering is WP:SYNTH. The fig leaf of "According to Wikipedia policies on no original research and objectivity/neutrality, it is impossible in Wikipedia to assign various weights to different types of affiliations. Hence, all types of affiliations count equally in the following table and throughout the whole page." is in fact doing exactly what it says should not be done. To avoid SYNTH, the list should be restructured to not imply a rank-ordering.

For all these reasons, I would vote the article not be kept in its current form; however a redirect to a list of lists containing articles such as List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley would be an alternative to deletion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you on the preferred result (or at least it should be a list of affiliation of the prize winners at the time of their award). The question is how to best get that result. A discussion on the talk page may not be fruitful - so, WP:TNT? --Enos733 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enos733: As it stands, the article is already deleted: there's nothing that stands in the way of you making a draft (or an actual article) of something that isn't as flagrantly unacceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but there is a process going on now and recreating the article (even in draft form) may not be helpful to short circuit the process. --Enos733 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enos733: Making a draft which actually meets guidelines now would be a great way for it to get maximum visibility and get the input of the most people on it, i.e. it would be the most convincing way to "improve the encyclopedia" here (and would be a decent compromise which would make the AfD, the DRV and all the Wikidrama from these two things entirely obsolete). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

DRV guidelines on canvassing

This is just one article. It isn't such big of a deal. I've amended DRV instructions to preclude an appearance of canvassing... — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No no no. I've reverted that change. WP:CANVASS is already policy and your interpretation of it is both wrong and unnecessary there. If you are summarizing someone's argument, it is polite to ping them. If it gets to the point where you are pinging everyone on one side of an argument, you should do a mass ping of all participants. If you are mentioning three editors (two of whom have already participated in the thread) and basically all the editors on the other side of the argument have also already participated in the thread, there is no "canvassing" concern whatsoever. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say there'd be no canvassing, but there will easily be a canvassing concern. Edit: this is not to say that it is justified to make an actual accusation of canvassing... — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please explain

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngman_Rhee&oldid=1051852661

Rhee Syngman, the first president of Hanguk, and my distant relative from Hwanghae or Hwanghaedo. Was responsible for several massacres, the sum of the low estimates is about 150,000 deaths, and the sum of the high estimates is about 350,000 deaths. The square root of 150000 multiplied by 350000, is 229128.7847, which rounds to 229129. This comes from a series of other articles including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea.

I am genuinely confused, did I do something to offend you? Do you think "I do not know what I am doing" or are you suspending judgement on my character and passing judgement on my work, which makes me look bad? No harm intended.

I think I solved part of the problem by finding out how to use talk pages as opposed to comments on edits. Which is what I think you might have been referring to earlier. Truly sorry, I could have saved you a lot of time if I had thought about this first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

God Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hong kuslauski: If you don't understand why the death toll of Rhee's administration sits at a geometric mean of 255800 dead is missing too much context to be meaningful, I can't help you. Also, you aren't doing things like capitalizing "North Korea". Perhaps the Teahouse can help; I've seen too many new editors with POVs regarding Communism get blocked to invest any time in helping you. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Rhee.

I listed why I said what Rhee syngmans death tolls sat where it did earlier in this post, this makes me think you didnt read much of it, if any.

Won't bother you again on this talk page, although I would venture to think you will proceed to damage my contributions without explaining in the future, maybe its for the better.

Cleanup after closing

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 RM closing instructions are not very complete after "Clean up after the move by fixing all...", but it's still a good idea to give others time to do the cleanup if you don't want to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Except it's completely fine to point to a DAB while people re-target, while leaving a redirect to the wrong page risks being wrong forever. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaving 50 articles redirecting to a disambig page makes a bigger risk of being wrong forever. Why do this out of order? Those who want the RM completed should chip in, or leave it as is, which is not wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I've closed RMs for quite some time, and links to DAB pages are always cleaned up fairly quickly; always within 2 months, and normally within 72 hours. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

How do you even know that? And how long is it OK to leave those links wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I know that per I've closed RMs for quite some time. And a link to a DAB page isn't wrong, it's just not as good as it should be. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:47, 31 October 2021 (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.