User talk:TheTechie/Archives/2024/March

March 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force#FCC callsigns vs. ICAO codes. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ariana Grande review

Hello! I have reverted your review of Ariana Grande, though you are welcome to begin a new review. There were a couple of issues; first of all, a new reviewer should start a new review page - you left your comment on the prior reviewer's page (Talk:Ariana Grande/GA3). The way to begin a GA review is to go to the nominations page Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Other_music_articles and click "start review", which will create a new page for your review. Your old review was also not very in-depth. Please read over Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and perhaps look at some of the other GA reviews being done during the backlog drive. You are welcome to begin a new review, and can ask for advice and help at the drive talk page or Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Let me know if you have questions about this! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Thank you for your message. That was my first review, so I thought something was up. Thank you for letting me know. I will let you know if I have any questions. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Draft:Windows 12

I previously declined your speedy deletion request for Draft:Windows 12. You should not tag it again for speedy deletion. The draft is not a hoax, but rather speculation and rumours. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it did not show up in my watchlist as template removed, so I tagged it again thinking it was an error. The only reason I tagged it as G3 is because it kept getting declined and seemed like made-up content. If there is another policy I should tag it as, please let me know. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 17:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Just leave it alone. If it keeps getting submitted, it will get rejected at some point or get nominated at MFD for deletion as being repeatedly submitted after being rejected. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Whpq Understood, will do. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

No message, just kitten!

Hym3242 (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Flight 1282

Hello @Mseingth2133444. I am @Archer1234. I noticed this edit that was a reversion at Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 of the previous with an edit summary Unexplained content removal. The edit that was reverted came with this explanation in the edit summary: Removed unnecessary trivia, so I do not think it was correct to say that the removal of the content was unexplained. Perhaps you inadvertently clicked on the incorrect link in UV when reverting? I have done that myself before, so it would not be out of the question. In any event, if you did not agree with the explained that was provided or had other reasons to object to the content removal, I think it would have been better to have posted a question about the edit on the talk page of the editor who removed the content. I encourage you to do that now even though the version of the article you prefer is what is current. You might consider apologizing to the editor for the inadvertent edit summary in your edit. Thank you and happy editing.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 02:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Archer1234 My fault, sorry. This was a new user (I think) removing content without consensus, so I think I misunderstood it as "unexplained content removal". Is this not supposed to happen, especially when the user removed it without consensus? Please help me understand what to do. Thanks, Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 02:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Good questions. No, it was not "unexplained content removal", so that was not the correct reason. If you object to the removal yourself (not because of no consensus, but because you disagree with the removal for reasons related to the content), then that would be a case where you could revert and in the edit summary say something like "I think we should retain this information, but let's talk about this on the talk page. Would you open a new topic there to start a new discussion?". In that way you have let the editor and everyone else know that you have a good-faith objection to the removal and are willing to discuss the matter to resolve any disagreement. It also puts the burden on them to start the discussion, although, some cases, you might want to start the discussion yourself.

However, if your only concern is that there is no consensus for the removal, but you, yourself, have no objection to it, then I would say just to leave it and let others who might have a substantive objection to chime in on their own. This article is being actively watched by 59 editors and it gets a great deal of scrutiny given it is an ongoing topic, so if someone has an objection, I am sure they will voice it.

This would be my general approach if all indications are everyone is editing in good-faith. However, there could be circumstances where content is removed with an inadequate or misrepresented explanation and thus may appear to be a bad-faith edit. In cases like that, you could revert with a "no consensus" or "get consensus on the talk page" message for your edit summary and perhaps leave a warning on their talk page (although I often wait to see how they react to the reversion before I issue a warning). At least, this is generally how I approach situations like this. Hope this helps.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 02:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Archer1234 Understood. Should I address this on the IP's talk page, or do something else? Thank you for your time! Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You could leave a short note on the IP's talk page just to let them know you are willing to discuss the matter. Or you could open a discussion on the talk page for the article and ask for other editors to offer their opinions on whether to retain the content or not. Then just see how the conversation goes. Good luck.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 02:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Consider

You might consider the possibility that multiple users who have never edited an article and never used a template who have come to my TP and AN/I to complain about what looks like (but isn't) a template are not interested in improving the project. How did the last, with zero edits, to whom you responded, even know what an SPI is? I added him to the suspected sock list. There is a banned user with 13 confirmed socks who has harassed me here and by phone and email and other sites I don't use for around ten years. It happens. Not upset, just commenting. Best, O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I hate to make it sound this way, but they do have a point.

Quoting WP:RETIRING:

"Retirement is just another way of saying that a user has permanently left Wikipedia."

You have not permanently left Wikipedia, and following WP:AGF, I'm trying to assume good faith here considering your account has at least 3 times the edits of mine, but I'm finding it hard.

I forget where they are, but there are templates to show if you are editing less or on a WikiBreak. Maybe consider those?

Also, one does not become a sock for pointing out an obvious thing. It should be noted that even I knew what an SPI was even before joining Wikipedia, so making the assumption that a new user doesn't know about SPI is not plausible.

I do agree that there is a similarity between PecanGizmo and the first suspected sock, but it starts to seem like libel when you just add a second one because they commented on your talk page.

Maybe be a bit more careful. I'm willing to talk more if you have ideas about what to do. Thank you, Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Please look more carefully. Both added one nonsense word each to their TP and UP to avoid red links; both edited nowhere else other than to attack me; both had their edits removed quickly by three different editors, two I don't know. Even in the 1% chance I am incorrect, that is not libel. Incidentally, 17473/678 is not 3. Not that that matters in the least. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 I think we're both misunderstanding. I am talking about User:Speakrangle. They did not exhibit this behavior. In fact, they don't even have a talk page.

That's why I think we're both misunderstanding. Feel free to clear it up Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Signing messages

Please don't forget to sign your user talk page messages when using templates, which don't have automatic signatures, like in Special:Diff/1214109464 and Special:Diff/1214109611. Thanks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andrybak I thought that socksuspect templates would be a bit weird with a signature. Thank you for letting me know that the templates should be signed. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 02:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Mseingth2133444,

Please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion so you better understand the speedy deletion criteria, when they apply and to which namespace they apply. Having the Article Wizard post the outline for an article draft is not "nonsense". Nonsense is a draft that states "kdhweiin44(j2ne" or "Kittens fly purple kites at night when it rains". Drafts with that kind of content is "gibberish". I'm concerned that you do not have enough editing experience to properly judge when pages warrant deletion of any kind. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. That's a fair comment to make; I wasn't aware that draft templates are not G1. Thank you for the note. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 01:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Good revert at Jazmin Bean! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 21:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asparagusus Anytime! The tag "pronouns changed" while patrolling RC really set off my vandalism detector. Glad to know it was a good revert. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 21:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kleshkreikne will pay the price for this

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that this guy is the exact same sockpuppet as User:BMX On WheeIs, and it literally said in this page that we're not supposed to feed the trolls in any way, shape or form. I'm sorry but I'll have to nominate that page for speedy deletion. My apologies. Make sure that you read WP:DENY and m:What is a troll? so that you'll have a better understanding of how these vandals are so damaging to Wikipedia. Hope this helps.

kleshkreikne. T 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well, if we can't have the SPI, at least we can protect the talk page (see WP:RFPP). Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 22:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Mine's already protected though. If you're not familiar this vandal is one of the most severe cases of LTA's that Wikipedia's ever seen. So the only good way to report it is by reporting it in m:SRG or by using the GARV tab on Twinkle (be aware of inappopriate usernames, hide them if possible) kleshkreikne. T 22:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see a GARV tab. Is it on a specific page? Or maybe it's admin-only. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 22:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, that's part of the global Twinkle extension on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. You'll need to run a source code so that you can have the global Twinkle installed on Wikipedia. Make sure you have JavaScript on. It's not part of Wikipedia's setting unlike the regular Twinkle. Here I'll show you. kleshkreikne. T 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

At last...

Oh my goodness! finally! I thought the program was dead! Yes please. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blitzfan51 Is this in regards to the adoption program? If so, let me know and I'll leave an adoption accepted on your talkpage. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

yes. it's about adoption. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

At last...

Oh my goodness! finally! I thought the program was dead! Yes please. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blitzfan51 Is this in regards to the adoption program? If so, let me know and I'll leave an adoption accepted on your talkpage. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

yes. it's about adoption. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Adoption course response (in under two paragraphs)

I'm not one to write two paragraphs, so I will make it short instead:
On Wikipedia, be nice, use common sense, and assume good faith. There is a fine line between being bold and being aggressive. Edit wars are not fun - avoid them.
In short, be civil (which is what I try to do anyway). And, of course, cite everything (within reason). No need to cite that the sky is blue or anything, but be thorough.
Edit summaries are a thing that I am working on, though most of my edits have been copyedits, so not much summary is needed besides "ce", lol.
Is this sufficient?? I didn't expect that I'd be getting class assignments, haha. > Cellina Starfire: talk? 01:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm new to adopting, and that's what I see them doing, so... Idk :) Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 01:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've made it one though @Cellina Starfire Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool, haha. Writing has never been my thing, at least with a length limit. I'm too concise for that :)

I have read quite a bit of the rules - I did so before really getting involved as an editor. I suppose going down the Wikipedia rabbithole isn't limited to mainspace! (I do understand that this may be more useful to others who are newer to the rules and who haven't bothered to look through everything like I have!)

In terms of improving my editing skills, I do want to run through the Wikipedia Adventure sometime, just to really dip my toes in. > Cellina Starfire: talk? 01:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)