User talk:ElectroChip123/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hello

Hello -ElectroChip123 (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ElectroChip123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger Madness

So many pages that should be merged, so little time to suggest them all ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Fun Stuff?

 Self-trout ? Made my personal page (I may regret this)...

ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Testing Purposes ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Sierpinski Triangle, yellow and black.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sierpinski Triangle, yellow and black.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! (I think). ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Categorising categories

You shouldn't have undone this edit where I added a category to a category that was up for deletion. All categories should be categorised, even ones heading for deletion - it removes them from worklists of cats needing cats among other things, and you shouldn't assume a deletion will happen unless it happens, certainly not for something like emptiness. But to be honest as a cat with a typo in its name, it's better deleted via g6 than as an empty category, and g6 happens much quicker, so I've done that. Le Deluge (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: I didn't assume it would be deleted due to emptiness. I assumed it would be deleted due to the typo. The reason I undid your edit is that I thought it made the category ineligible for "speedy deletion". I was simply trying to ensure that the category was deleted as quickly as possible. I don't know why a misspelled category needs to be categorized, but as long as the correctly spelled one is, it suppose it shouldn't be an issue. I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so I don't know what "g6" is, but if you would like to give me a brief overview or direct me to a relevant help page that would be greatly appreciated. Also, you wouldn't happen to be a categorist, would you?

Testing Testing, 123

This is just a test. ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Sibsu (and several other pages)

Hi ElectroChip123 - please note that inhabited places are generally never prodded or proposed for deletion (if they are, they are invariably kept). See WP:GEOLAND. Yu seem to be using WP:PROD much too liberally! Grutness...wha? 04:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Grutness: I see what you are saying, however most of those that I PROD'd don't have anything other than, maybe, a few statistics, and are entirely unsourced (which is perhaps the bigger issue). Likewise, the articles don't establish that the places actually exist! Also, WP:NOTGUIDE, would seem to apply to all of these places. I was also considering having them transwiki'd over to WikiVoyage. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If the references do not exist, it's far more sensible to look for some rather than risking losing the articles by prodding them. It's pretty easy and quick to check whether the places actually exist (as quick as prodding them). If they don't, fine, prod them, but it took less than a minute to find online references to all of them - the fact that they each had coordinates listed (which quickly showed the places on maps when clicked) should have been clue enough to their existence. As to WP:NOTGUIDE, I'd suggest actually reading it - it doesn't apply in any way to the articles you prodded. WP:NOTGUIDE, when relating to geographical places, deals with adding in extraneous information relating to the likes of things which would interest a sightseer, rather than things which relate to the actual physical nature and statistics of a place. Certainly none of the prodded articles have that - and as such, WikiVoyage almost certainly wouldn't have accepted them. I'd suggest spending a little more time getting used to the ins and outs of the various Wikimedia projects before you start suggesting moving articles from one project to another. Grutness...wha? 16:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Grutness: the fact that they each had coordinates listed ... should have been clue enough to their existence. Merely listing a set of coordinates doesn't mean anything. I could put a coordinate string together and say that it's the location of "Bob's Burgers". Furthermore, I could even add it to Google Maps to enure that "which quickly showed the places on maps when clicked" works just as well as it does with a legitimate place. Google Maps publishes user contributions, especially adding a location if you declare yourself its owner. Like Wikipedia, Google relies on other users to weed out non-existent businesses and "destinations", thus merely being listed as "existent" by Google is not confirmation that the business or town exists. WikiVoyage almost certainly wouldn't have accepted them. That's why I PROD'd them instead of going through the transwiki procedure. I'd suggest spending a little more time getting used to the ins and outs of the various Wikimedia projects before you start suggesting moving articles from one project to another. Ouch. I actually did, that's why I PROD'd them here, rather than transwiki them to WikiVoyage. Rather than go on about "you could have just clicked the coordinate link", you could explain why we even need a one sentence long page on Wikipedia, at all. In any other project on Wikipedia (not Wiki Project, Wikipedia itself), an article that small survive for over nine years except by shear luck and lack of page views. I would expect that kind of length to survive on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. What specific project is mandating that such small stubs be left here? What is their purpose? I've seen longer articles about people get deleted for WP:GNG, and those articles had sources! If the references do not exist, it's far more sensible to look for some rather than risking losing the articles by prodding them. Even if I had found and attached sources to the pages, the articles would have still been so short that I question including them on Wikipedia. In other words, I would still have PROD'd them due to lack of notability. As to risking losing the articles by prodding them, a procedure is in place to undelete pages if they become relevant or notable. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

But they are notable. Inherently so, according to WP:GEOLAND. And yes, you could have added bogus places to Google maps, but coordinates do not simply link to Google maps. They link to about 30 different map sources. Even if you were simply to use google maps, it's very difficult to fake when a place appears on a satellite view. Rather than go on about "you could have just clicked the coordinate link", you could explain why we even need a one sentence long page on Wikipedia, at all. Because it provides information. If an article provided no information, then yes, it should be deleted. But every single one of the articles you prodded provided information about its subject. The articles about places all passed the criteria needed for deletion at WP:DEL-REASON. And PROD is only intended for uncontroversial deletions. A quick scan through WP:AFD would confirm that real places are almost always kept, usually by WP:snowball. For example, the stub on Douglas, Falkland Islands, when you prodded it, said "Douglas is a settlement on East Falkland, in the Falkland Islands, on the west shore of Salvador Water" and gave its coordinates. It tells you that there is a settlement, what its name is, and where it is located. If it had said "Douglas is a nice place", "Douglas has the best bakery in the Falklands", or similar, then it would have been a prod. And a quick Google search reveals articles mentioning the place at www.falklands.gov.fk and at www.nytimes.com, so it clearly exists. I apologise if what I said caused an "ouch" reaction - that was not my intention. You have, however, only been editing for a few months and only started prodding articles in the last couple of weeks. Given the nature of those prods, it seemed clear that you weren't using them appropriately, and suggesting that the articles might have been better at another project also indicated you were still coming to grips with some of the workings of Wikipedia and its sister projects. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear about this, Wikipedia does not only consider the current state of an article — when deciding whether to keep or delete something, we do not only evaluate the sources that are present in the article as currently written, but also do a WP:BEFORE test to determine whether improved sources are available to improve the article with before we actually consider deletion. Now, this obviously doesn't mean that we keep all unsourced articles forever just because it's theoretically possible that better sources might exist, because sometimes they truly don't — but you do have to put at least some effort into checking for the availability of other sources that haven't been used yet before you can nominate a poorly sourced existing article for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI

It is indeed false that an event having probability zero implies the event is impossible (though the converse is true). See [1] or, more intuitively, [2]. EEng 18:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Thanks"

Hi Electrochip,
I sent that "thanks" for the "according to a professor" revert because I was pleased to see someone else on the playground. That particular edit was a minor one for me, the passage's more important issue for me (that I was planning to get to) was that of possibly marginal notability/includability given that the ref is primary. The weasel-ish wording can indeed be addressed by rewording it (vs. revert). So, thanks! RFinlay72 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Un-called-for reformatting.

I hear your message on the PofG talk page. But, you did it in a high-handed authoritarian way that gives you the last word. That's "aggressive" in a way akin to the refactoring of someone else's words. You set it up so we may only address your comment if we continue a discussion that's supposedly closed. Very irksome.

Anybody would be more willing to accept your "chill please" words if they weren't accompanied by that "aggressive" act. A more suitable way to interject would maybe be to "close" the discussion like you did, then simply add your commentary below that. Or even just add your comment without "closing" -- ask (please) the participants if the discussion should be closed. Would you be willing to address (fix) that on the talk page? Would you consider it aggressive if I tried to fix it?

RFinlay72 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And yes! Thanks for the cleanup tag edit. It's tricky to find the right "codes" for the perfect tag. It takes some skill. Good skills on you! RFinlay72 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@RFinlay72: You're, welcome. If you want to familiarize yourself with them, I recommend using the Wikipedia help pages (I've found the "wiki markup" help page to be quite useful) or clicking the "edit source" button on a page that has something you want to use/learn. It takes time, but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I can't wait for your answer as to to whether you would consider it also aggressive to undo the closing of the section. I'm doing it now anyway. I promise I'll be nice and try to do it right. RFinlay72 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. I undid the closing of the active discussion and moved your words to a new subsection. It was my best guess at what to do with them. Feels okay to me, but they're your words so you make the call and make any changes you see fit (of course). The new context for your words makes them sound a little "off" I know. Sorry about that. I imagine you may want to adjust them accordingly. RFinlay72 (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind about being willing to see it "closed". There's no real need for it, and it would amount to a badge of shame. So, please don't do it. The negative aspect of the exchange was winding down anyway. If the "participants" do chill more in response to your admonishments, the section will simply become inactive in short order like almost every other similar situation in Wikipedia, and it will ultimately be archived after it's clearly no longer relevant -- no big deal. As of now, it's still an active discussion and you should avoid adding to the melodrama with a such a "forced closing". RFinlay72 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@RFinlay72: I closed the discussion in response to a request for closure (RfC). I was editing an article (I believe I was poking through PROD'd articles), when I came across Crawiki's request on another user's talk page (the owner of said talk page has been inactive for a few years, so I doubted they would come back to moderate this, hence I felt that I had a duty to step in). Due to what Crawiki had written on that talk page, I specifically addressed their concern about "personal attacks". I will admit that I wrote my "closing argument" before I looked through the diffs, so I was unaware of the nature (reality) of the "editing other people's words" claim you were making. That said, on the talk page alone, both of you got close to breaking the three-revert rule (3RR), hence why I forcibly asked both of you to "chill". The 3RR is something that people are routinely banned for violating (it's a form of "edit warring"), and I didn't want to see that happen to either of you. Thankfully, due to the nature of each of your reverts (both of y'alls), and their associated reasoning, I don't believe either of you actually did. Just FYI, if I had believed that you (both) broke the 3RR, I would simply have gone to the Teahouse and asked for a more experienced editor to come over and explain the 3RR to each of you. Y'all seem to be newer (no offense), and I don't want to to bite you. It was clear that both of you were going in an endless back and forth, from which I could be sure that no good things would come. Y'all even went to the "let's just delete this whole article" zone. I mean, that's a bit extreme, don't you think? Since it was you that wrote the initial, bad-faith rant (on the talk page), I spent additional time addressing your concerns. As to your concern over the length of my message, over at the Wikipedia ANI (Administrative Noticeboards / Incidents) it is not entirely uncommon to have/see a long "closure" message (some are even longer than the one I wrote), and that is the style I based mine on. I do apologize if it came across as a bit "heavy handed", that was not my intention. Lastly, from an outside perspective, although you are right in saying that the discussion hadn't come to a conclusion yet, it was also escalating like the Cold War, and I wanted halt its progression before it reached Mutually Assured Destruction. Anyways, I hope this clears things up. Warmest regards - ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi ElectroChip123! You created a thread called Updating member rolls at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Circumcision. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: Adding a missing "{{ping|USERNAME}}" so ensure that the editors involved are notified is "disruptive editing"? I did forget to sign my comment, so it could have looked like the voice of "Doc James", however, I explicitly pinged him. Thus, unless he likes to reference himself in 3rd person, it should be clear that Doc James wasn't the one who was contradicting Doc James. Again, the lack of signing was my fault, however, I fail to see how notifying the person he responded to is "disruptive". Maybe it is, but then I would think that Doc James's edit to one of my comments was even more disruptive, especially since it negated the whole "context" point I was attempting to make. I could have taken it to arbitration or to the Administrator's Noticeboard, as it was technically "disruptive editing". Instead, I assumed he did it to improve the conversation and aid in the debate, hence, I simply "rolled with it" and carried on with the debate (until my personal life got very busy and I was unable to keep up with it anymore). ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I'm aware of the sandbox, in fact, I'm currently using mine to rewrite the KEO article, and a I actually made a second one so I can work on the LGBT rights in Ohio article. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, that's a standard message that comes from a drop-down box, I didn't create the wording. That said, you shouldn't edit someone else's comment; if Doc James wanted to ping that editor, they could or would have done so, and you shouldn't make it appear as if they did. You are always free to ping people yourself, in your own comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: Ok, however, that doesn't address the concern I raised about [3]. ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that now; I hadn't noticed before. He probably shouldn't have done that either, though it appears he was doing it to make the conversation easier to understand. Given that it was one edit, it's highly unlikely anything would have been done on an Administration Board, and certainly there would have been no arbitration. Well, it was done a month ago now, so I recommend moving forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: To quote myself I could have taken it to arbitration or to the Administrator's Noticeboard, as it was technically "disruptive editing". Instead, I assumed he did it to improve the conversation and aid in the debate, hence, I simply "rolled with it" and carried on with the debate (until my personal life got very busy and I was unable to keep up with it anymore). I only brought it up now because I was feeling a bit singled out. Sort of like getting pulled over for going 5 mph over the speed limit, yet the person going 20 mph over the speed limit doesn't get pulled over. ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, but that happened over a month ago, and I didn't notice it. And, frankly, Doc James has been editing since 2007, is an administrator, and has made tens of thousands of edits, so there's no real point in adding a template message on his user Talk: page, because he already knows the rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:UserboxGalleries has been nominated for discussion

Category:UserboxGalleries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Andrybak: To be fair, I was in the process of nominating it myself... I just finished moving its contents to a better category. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Since you've marked it with {{db-author}}, I've repurposed the nomination. See notice and a comment below. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Userbox galleries has been nominated for discussion

Category:Userbox galleries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

@ElectroChip123: note that vast majority of "lists" in category "Lists of userboxes" are actually "galleries'. Rather than forking a category, a rename would be a better solution. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Andrybak: The problem is that that doesn't address the reason I created the new category. The root problem is that "mainspace" galleries such as "Wikipedia/Userboxes/Galleries/Food" are being lumped in with "User:XYZ/UBX/asdfa/a/g" galleries. This results in an un-navigable mess. As an alternative, (in addition to renaming the page) it could be set up so that all of the "Wikipedia/..." galleries aren't included in the "galleries" category, except for the top-level page which would be sorted to the top of the lists. ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion centralized at CfD page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Userbox galleries categories overhaul

Categories Lists of userboxes, Themed Wikipedian userboxes, and Userbox galleries have been nominated for discussion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Primetals Technologies

I just saw your merger proposal. Considering I wrote most of the VAI article (a lot easier to spell) I can't see that it would make sense to merge. A joint venture is not the same thing as a new parent company which would justify including the entire history in the parent company's article. However, I added some information about VAI.

Weird that I did all this because the church that moved into VAI's plant near me just moved into a new building. They haven't been in that plant for 11 years.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction to the above: one of my additions was copying content that I felt did not belong in Siemens VAI because it was about the history of the company before Siemens. A lot of information from there was unsourced and added by Primetals, whose name violates the rules. I see this person was blocked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)