User talk:Michuk

Welcome! Hi Michuk, how do i contact you in regards to deleting a wikipage you created for me? Jade Thompson Hello, Michuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Tegen Roberts, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tegen Roberts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable person.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article since the concern was raised. Tegen Roberts is famous in the UK and made it into the major UK newspapers. As a gameshow winner and winner of one of the largest amounts given out at anytime on television in the UK. Also being the largest amount given out on any UK Channel for a non-prime time TV show. she gained considerable attention but the nature of her battle with her condition and overcoming it to then go on and win Deal or No Deal (UK game show) captured the hearts of the British people. Michuk (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tegen Roberts has been rescued from proposed for deletion for the following reasons:

The subject of the article is a well known person in the UK since the Deal or No Deal (UK game show) and this follows precedents already set on Wikipedia for notability after winning a game show. Craig Phillips winner of British version of Big Brother and Judith Keppel who won Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show). The perception of notability of a person should not be limited by users who are not resident in the terrority where said notability is known and accepted. Both these notable people share the distinction of winning the top prize in a televised gameshow. And are mentioned in articles for the corresponding gameshow. Michuk (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the family statement... it's redundant as it already appears in the article...Jeancey (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't there when i started editing but tons of people keep adding and subtracting text simultaneously but point taken. I don't mind who puts it up but i think the family statement should be there before Apple Corp statement - RIP STEVE JOBS Michuk (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tegen Roberts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tegen Roberts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jade Thompson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Thompson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 01:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every national chess federation (the only exception I can think of is UK) uses the Elo rating system in some form. Elo can be assumed when talking about chess ratings and it is not necessary to specify it every time a rating is mentioned. Likewise, it is not necessary to specify a player's rating is "standard"; yes FIDE and some national federations do have separate rapid and blitz ratings, but "standard" or "classical" is implied unless there is ambiguity. If you're talking about "rapid rating" or "blitz rating" yes that needs to be specified, but "standard rating" does not. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every chess federation in the world keeps 3 rating lists. Standard, rapid and blitz. It is necessary to distinguish the record broken is on the standard rating list. It is ambiguous otherwise.

The Elo scale is one of many rating scales. It is not even unique to FiDE as USCF, ECF ( formerly BCF) ratings still exist and are recognised by many chess players, federations and by FIDE in many circumstances.

The Elo rating System should stated to avoid ambiguity. It is like quoting a speed and omitting kph and saying mph is not really used that much. Michuk (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Indenting your reply, hope you don't mind). It's not actually true that every chess federation in the world keeps 3 rating lists. Many don't keep blitz lists and don't regard blitz as serious events, for example. The Elo rating system actually originated with the USCF before it was adopted by FIDE, and most national chess federations use a version of Elo. There are not "many rating scales", ECF truly is an outlier in using a different system. While different federations have implemented the Elo system differently, there is a general understanding that a 2200 USCF player, a 2200 DSB (Germany) player and a 2200 FIDE-rated player from China or Brazil will be of comparable strength. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every federation has to hold blitz, rapid, and standard ratings. That holds for all national players of a federation who compete in FIDE tournaments. USCF is NOT Elo. Michuk (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. Federations are free to run their own affairs, including rating systems, any way they like. They may or may not have rapid and blitz ratings, they may use BCF style ratings, they may use a Soviet-style category system, or a go-style kyu and dan system, or any system at all or no system at all. As it happens, almost all national federations use an implementation of the Elo system, originally developed for the USCF and later adopted by FIDE. Your constant repetition of "Elo" in chess biography articles is disruptive and does not improve the articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE does its own calculations for its own ratings of tournaments that it sanctions. FIDE does not depend on various federations to have their own rating databases and do their own rating calculations. The United States does, in fact, have its own rating databases and does its own calculations, but these are independent from FIDE. Many players have both USCF ratings and FIDE ratings, and they are generally different from each other.

The present USCF rating calculation does not use Elo's original formulas, but the formulas it uses are directly derived from Elo's as explained by Glickman [1]. I do not know if FIDE has made its own modifications to Elo's original formulas, but I suspect that it has, since it has been doing its own rating calculations for over 50 years.

In our sources, the usage "his rating is 2535 Elo" is rare, because readers generally know, and are expected to know, that the rating systems used are based on Elo's formulas. In the encyclopedia, on the other hand, it is occasionally desirable to mention this, because our readers are not generally knowledgable about chess; but it is repetitious and undesirable to mention Elo more than once in an article that is not about Elo.

In our sources, and in the encyclopedia, blitz ratings and rapid ratings are seldom discussed. I am not sure I have ever seen an article in, for example, Chessbase, that mentions a player's blitz or rapid rating, even in articles about blitz or rapid tournaments. For this reason I think that one can omit "standard" in discussing ratings without worrying about ambiguity. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia not a ChessBase article. Specificity is the default. I don’t see how a statement such as people know it is Elo usurps the simple action of specifying the Elo unit of measure at least once in the article. Michuk (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "default". There are many chess biographies in Wikipedia, and none of them use the name "Elo" to clarify a rating, except those that you have modified to do so. If you feel that the Wiki chess editors have been making a grave error these past 15-20 years, you might want to start a conversation about it at Wikipedia Talk:Chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the articles for chess on Wikipedia are not perfect and neither am I but the assumption that someone new to chess who’s first article is any of these written in the format that we can skip references to units and assume everyone knows it is a standard format Elo rating is just less than a real encyclopaedia.

When a grandmaster like Alireza Firouzja eventually breaks the rapid or blitz world record then we have to specify format of the ratings, because there are three formats. So the default should be to specify at least once in the section that discusses that format of the rating.

A USCF rated player could assume the ratings are in USCF quite innocently as could an English chess player who has gotten used to ECF ratings. As Wikipedia we should strive to eliminate ambiguity not surf the edges hoping our regards stay on surf 🏄‍♂️ Michuk (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion you are worried about simply doesn't happen. There's no cause to use unnatural and repetitious language in chess articles. I really don't understand your belief that writing FIDE rating could possibly be confused with a USCF rating out especially an ECG rating. Finally as others have said, rapid and blitz ratings are of little interest and we never write about them. If we ever did they would explicitly be called "rapid rating" our "blitz ratings". You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Quale (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read my talk post I said once per article if it all refers to standard format chess and Elo rating.

Once per article section if it has blit and rapid references and other ratings systems referenced.

This isn’t complicated. It’s basic stuff for a global reference document that is trying hard to consider more than a joke. Michuk (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be an issue with editors who like removing as much detail as possible and believe many details are to be assumed and not prescribed. This style can be quite lazy and sloppy leading to ambiguity. The maximalist editor can fall foul of unnecessary repetition and overly detailed articles. There is a middle way. The absence of repetition is not always good when the factual description requires it. Just as repetition of units of measurement don’t add to an article when it is obvious in an article or section of an article what unit of measurement is being referred to. What is not acceptable is the assumption by a handful of minimalist or maximalist editors that their personal preferences should be imposed on all articles without question. Michuk (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ss112. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Wordle in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

It's already noted in the body that Wordle is very similar to Lingo. Claiming it's a "copy" and "identical" is contentious and would need to be sourced, and even still, doesn't sound neutrally worded and doesn't seem fit for the lead. Your linking to the British version of Lingo, which came after the American version, was additionally incorrect and unnecessary. Please don't leave misleading edit summaries. Ss112 08:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your recent edit to the The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) article summarized your edit by "Added links". But your edit did more than merely provide "links". Once more, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michuk! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Emma Woolf and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylie, Emma Woolf is a famous author and notable television personality. Michuk (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). You have no independent reliable sources at all. KylieTastic (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michuk! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]