User talk:Lee Vilenski

Question

Hello LV! Quick question, I was wondering, whenever you have time or if you'd like, if you can review Ronald Reagan's article to see if it's suitable for a GA or VGA (I'm gunning for GA to be frank). It was a VGA in the past but was demoted due to sourcing issues, questions about neutrality and I think simplicity. I've compiled a list of issues on User:TDKR Chicago 101/sandbox1 to improve the article. Obviously only if you have time or would like, not twisting your arm or anything, but I hold your feedback in high regard when it comes to my GA noms as of late. :) Thanks! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's clearly well sourced - I haven't checked the integrity of it though. My main issue is that it isn't all that simple. I usually go line by line and think "can I make this more simple", and when I don't think I can, I think about sentence structure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'll run through the article and try to break down sentences/simplify words. I've always pondered about this: if there's a word/term that may sound complex, but if there's a simple wiki article about that term, is it better to link it or simplify that term? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always make the text as simple as we can. Linking to a term is only helpful if that term is something that has to be used to explain what is going on. This would usually be because the term is jargon, has a specific meaning that can't be simplified (or if the simplification changes the meaning), or it's a direct quote.

Think of it as if simple English was a different language to English. You might have to use a French word in English, and you might be able to link it, but it would be easier if it was written in English for all readers if possible.

This isn't exactly that, but that's how I treat Simplification. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across this and I think it's mostly accurate. Just want to add that there are some good tips at User talk:Macdonald-ross which might also be useful.-- BRP^ever 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101- BRP^ever 14:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both of your feedback! This is something I've always wondered about during my tenure here. Was curious about other users thoughts about it. :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TAU (spacecraft)

i forgot to put edit remark, "do not put 'push-button garbage' back into the lede". Please see 'admin-notic' post.--If this post is not considered rude, then fine. 2001:2020:313:9A73:DDA5:F5F1:76F3:D54D (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rfd "in progress"

Hi, when you closed Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/User:Cyber.Eyes.2005/WikiProject Pakistan/Grading scheme, you didn't remove the "in progress". TagUser (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to withdraw my request

Hi Lee, I want to withdraw my request for adminship because, given the opposition, I am not ready yet to be an admin, despite my hard work, it's just going to be Wikipedia:Not now at this time. Best, ⭐ Adelaide Do you have to say something? 21:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Cactus for you!

--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 11:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]