User talk:Forscha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Forscha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Draft:European Speedrunner Assembly[edit]

Hey, I saw ye created a draft for European Speedrunner Assembly. I'd been thinking of doing something similar, so I edited the draft. I've rewritten the lede of the article a bit. I'm feeling the article may be diving a bit too much into specifics rather than giving a general overview, as well as relying a bit too much on primary sourcing (references with some connection to the subject) rather than secondary sourcing (references independent of the subject). The BTRL section, for example, starts off detailing the SM64 event rather than giving an overview of what the event is, which could confuse readers (and by the looks of it confused the reviewer) CiphriusKane (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am well aware that many of the sources in the draft are primary, but I have tried to implement secondary sources whenever I have been able to. A lot of the information in the draft (total donations, for example) have primary sources that just couldn't be matched by secondary sources, as they would estimate or round the amount up or down (or be completely wrong). I have tried to use news articles whenever I've found relevant ones. The article itself is written by first finding sources, then valuable information within those sources, and lastly write a sentence based on them. News articles have a tendency to write about the event, but without sharing any valuable information that can be used for a Wikipedia article. I therefore thought it would be better to use "official" citations instead of reddit posts or forum threads, as Wikipedia doesn't like such sources (understandably).
With that being said, the history section is heavily reliant on Speed Demos Archive forum posts. I couldn't find a way around this as the history for a lot of events born on the internet have a big part of their history within different forums. I tried to balance this by using archived pages as well, to show the actual progress without worrying about edits or deletion.
The history of BTRL did start with Super Mario 64, at least publicly. There were no mentions about ESA wanting to bring out the concept before that first announcement (at least that I could find). The only "history" I know besides that is SpeedGaming's Chase for the Record being a potential "proof of concept" for ESA, but this is pure speculation and nothing public can be found about it.
I personally thought the original lede was better than the one for GDQ, but English is not my primary language, so if this lede improves the quality of the draft I am thankful. Forscha (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concern with having an overreliance on primary sources is notability. Notability is established through coverage in secondary sourcing, such as this article for BTRL Spelunky 2, otherwise it could be seen as promotion.
Maybe I was a bit overzealous in my pruning of the lede, but the lede is meant to highlight why the event is notable, and I felt some of the details, such as the BTRL prize pool, were better suited for the main body of the passage. What do ye feel should be readded?
Also, the bit about BTRL is that the explanation of the concept is tied heavily to the first event. I feel it'd be better to explain what BTRL is (stuff such as the concept, the format, prize and sponsorship) before diving into examples, so that readers have an idea of what it is before getting specific details. General before specific CiphriusKane (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you are saying is correct, and I am all for changing the article in ways so it is deemed good enough to be publish on Wikipedia. I have personally searched sources for several hours while writing this article, but I absolutely accept that I have missed many. I intended for this to be a first draft for people to improve, but it soon became a project I felt very attached to when reading about the organisations history etc.
Regarding the article being too specific, I understand that it should be "general before specific". I do however think that most of the text in the history-section is relevant and to the point. I tried to get a very clear picture of the history and thereafter boiled it down to "what had caused ESA to become what it is" (splitting from Ludendi, as an example).
Finding secondary, reliable sources for donation totals and history might prove very difficult. But if I understand you correctly these parts might be fine with primary sources due to its reliance on accurate totals/accurate information? Forscha (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have now improved a lot of the sources with what I could find (including dates and some donation totals). If you have any sources to switch things out with I would be happy if you did. Until then, I will continue my search for reliable secondary sources. Forscha (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I believe it is notable enough to be a published article, though it's still far from perfect. While it's all well and good wanting a detailed history section, it feels to me that the article puts the events themselves as a footnote. It's the events that make it notable. I've identified two more articles (1 2 which can show notability as they pertain to specific runs, but as it stands I'm finding it tricky to place the sources in. I've redone the BTRL section a bit so it now has an overview rather than jumping straight into specifics. Have ye considered looking at the Swedish and Italian Wikipedia articles for sources? CiphriusKane (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish Wikipedia article is extremely out of date, short and full of misinformation. It also only has a few sources, and pretty much all of them have been used in this article already. I did check the Italian Wikipedia now, but as expected it is the same deal. I have one article I can use for citations for 2013, but that's about it. Forscha (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to implement the mentions of Turbo Tunnel and Mario Relay into the article somehow, these sites also mentions them.1234 I guess a paragraph could be written under the "Today" section where notable news and achievements can be shared? Forscha (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in replying. I feel the "Today" section could probably be converted to be about the events, because currently it seems to be more about the social aspects of ESA with little space dedicated to the events themselves, and in my mind the events and the runs themselves are what make ESA notable rather than board games and ice cream.
I also feel like I should mention the sourcing. I just had a look at the sourcing for the statement "Each event also hosts several internal gaming tournaments, has a room dedicated to board games and tends to have attendees take part in other social activities, such as party games and role playing games." and it's all non-significant coverage that just confirms the statement is true without any indication of notability. The TechRaptor article is just a passing mention, the YouTube video is interviews where the board games are briefly shown at the end which essentially amounts to zero coverage, the first Destructoid article has the social stuff as an addendum at the end and the second Destructoid article is completely irrelevant to the statement from what I can see. From what I can tell, unnecessary reference bombing is frowned upon.
I can understand yer eagerness to get the article into the mainspace, but in my opinion the article is far from ready, particularly because it's reading more like a report on the organisation's history than a Wikipedia article (stuff like "ESA had set itself in motion to become an annual event." is rather unencylopaedic, for example, and the article lends itself too heavily to routine/minor/insignificant/non-notable details such as "In the weeks following ESA 2012, several forum threads appeared on Speed Demos Archive where viewers and attendees praised the event, discussed what had gone well, what had gone wrong, and speculated whether it could be repeated the following year." while neglecting the news reporting coverage of the events themselves). This is just the opinion of a non-reviewer though, so take it as ye may CiphriusKane (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely fine with you changing up the article. I thought mentioning how the event got to where it is and why it continued to begin with was "relevant". It gives a full picture of why the event became what it is. But I definitely accept that my Wikipedia-article writing skills may not be perfect, and I gladly change the article and learn from it.
However, I have seen multiple articles where history is just listed randomly and no "connection" is told, which personally makes me super uninterested and lost. According to me, the key factors that needs to be told for a full picture is the community originating from SDA, quick information regarding the first event, Lundendi's involvement and splitup from ESA, name change and company creation. I also believe more information regarding how Save the Children and The Alzheimer Foundation became their main affiliated charities could improve the "history" section, but there is no information about this other than when they came into rotation and the information given on The Alzheimer Foundation information page.
I would happily change up the "ESA Today" section. I focused more on the history as that was what I mainly focused my research on. The "what happens off camera" section can probably be said in a single sentence, if mentioned at all (which I think should, as it is also a big "attendance" event).
I will look over the citations again. After 150 citations I can imagine one or two being misplaced. Forscha (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in replying again (got distracted by, ironically, ESA). I agree that some of the history stuff like Lundendi's involvement is relevant, just it's written in a way that's bad for Wikipedia. It may be that it'll have to start with European Speedster Assembly, and that we'll need to be finding independent secondary sources for them (so this excludes forum posts, statements made by Lundendi and ESA, and interviews). I believe the sources are out there, but they'll probably be in Swedish. This source for example seems to be the best of the lot, though I suspect it'd fall short of significant coverage. I've tried to slim down the history section, which unfortunately has meant removing a lot of excessive details. If ye take a look at Games Done Quick for example, the history section is brief and sourced to extensive coverage. I'm fearing that it may just be a case that ESA's history is just unremarkable, despite how extensive it is, at least in the English news sphere. I'd recommend removing the article from the review queue for the time being CiphriusKane (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is listed on the redirect page as a draft to be improved, so I don't think I should remove it from the review queue?[1] Forscha (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It'll make it easier to alert reviewers when the article's ready if it's removed from the queue for now. It's essentially been rejected for now, just left in the queue, so leaving it in will just either confuse future reviewers or cause it to be rejected. At least that's the way I see it. But as ye're the article creator and it's yer name on the submission tag, if ye feel it's fine leaving it in I'll drop the issue CiphriusKane (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to revoke the draft, and I honestly don't care. If you want to update the draft, go ahead. Spending 50+ hours researching a so called Wikipedia "article", making sure to back everything up with 150 sources (with only around 50 being "primary") just to have everything removed due to original, archived sourcing being "not reliable" has removed my interests in helping out. I don't get why this article was not created by someone else before me, because putting time to research and sample sources was obviously not what was needed. Forscha (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're discouraged; my declining the move to article space was not meant as a black mark against your editing and is not a permanent judgement of the merits of an article on this topic.
Starting an article from scratch is very difficult as a newcomer because there's a steep learning curve - I wrote my first new article 2 1/2 years after registering and the initial version was still speedily deleted. I persisted with better use of sources and it's still up - and I became an admin a few months later.
The core of Wikipedia editing is using independent, secondary reliable sources like newspapers, books, and magazines that directly discuss the subject in detail. Although your work was detailed it rested too much on the organisation's own material and informal sources and included a kind of original research we call "improper synthesis", i.e. using sources that don't mention ESA.
Draft space provides a "safe space" to develop articles without the immediate threat of deletion that live articles face, so there is no rush to work on the article. Nevertheless, I hope you'll stick around and I'll do some more digging into sources later to see what I can add. Fences&Windows 13:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I echo what Fences and windows said. Take some time out if need be, but keep this in mind: the article is now ready to be approved and looks good, and it's because ye put those 50+ hours in to make the base, which allowed myself and Fences and windows to build upon it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project after all. Ye've shown ye've got research skills, which would be useful for magazine article writings and the likes, just needs filtering for Wikipedia.
Also, I apologise that my actions upset ye, that was far from my intent CiphriusKane (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ESA article[edit]

European Speedrunner Assembly is now a B-class mainspace article. I'd say that's really good for a first article. As for the stuff that got cut, I'd advise finding a different venue for it, like a magazine or a blog, because it is the sort of stuff that'd be more suited for a Kotaku article CiphriusKane (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am happy the article was approved. It just felt very annoyed in the moment when I felt like all my work was for nothing, and I wondered why no one else had created the article to begin with if my draft would just be completely rewritten regardless. I do now realize that my research created a great foundation for other editors to make the article Wikipedia-friendly, so I am happy with the result. I apologize for my immature response. It was simply me feeling, in that moment, like I had wasted my time. Thank you for your help, without it the article would not have been accepted! Forscha (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alzheimerfonden (June 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing 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 organizations and companies). 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The sources cited are either primary, or provide only passing mentions in another context. We need to see significant coverage of the organisation itself, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG.
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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Forscha! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Alzheimerfonden[edit]

Information icon Hello, Forscha. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alzheimerfonden, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Alzheimerfonden[edit]

Hello, Forscha. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alzheimerfonden".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Forscha&oldid=1126598384"