Jump to content

User talk:TheTechnician27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.
Flag of Ukraine - Solidarity with the people and the country of Ukraine

Hey, this is where you can ask me questions if you want. If you have questions about Wikipedia itself, your best bet might be the Teahouse, but otherwise, just click 'New Section', sign your name with those quadruple tildes ('~~~~'), and I'll get back to you when I can. It helps if you ping me. If you don't know how to do this, just copy and paste {{ping|TheTechnician27}}, {{re|TheTechnician27}}, or {{u|TheTechnician27}} before your message.

References added

Hello TheTechnician27, thanks for recently rating the Child cannibalism article. I went through the article and have added references where they were still missing. So maybe give it another look on whether it qualifies for B class now? Gawaon (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gawa. I'll go ahead and take a look! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've re-reassessed it as 'B', as I think it clearly meets those standards now (as noted, the few uncited passages should be cleaned up, but they don't preclude 'B'; that's more of a GA thing). From just a single read-through of the article, I can say that on the surface, it appears to be at least close to the GA criteria. I definitely wouldn't WP:GAFAIL this, although I can say for certain that if this ever does go to a GA review, that's going to be a lot of effort. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I don't think I'll seek a GA rating for the time being – I'm more interested in actually improving articles than in getting them certified in some way. But I appreciate your re-assessment :) Gawaon (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good attitude to have! The main reason I like GA assessments is because they often lead to big improvements in the article as someone interested enough sits down and combs through them for critique (this recently happened to me where an editor pointed out large oversights in the article Ovalipes catharus), although obviously it's nowhere near as exacting as a featured article review. I definitely feel like treating GAs and FAs as an end goal unto themselves like a trophy instead of as a toolkit to refine the article can be missing the point. Have a good one, and best of luck on the article! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ovalipes catharus

The article Ovalipes catharus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ovalipes catharus for comments about the article, and Talk:Ovalipes catharus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tool

Hi TT; regarding this: "I hugely appreciate your help to make the article more readable; I struggle with concision." I suffer from the same predilection, but thanks to modern tech I can now get my LLM friends to help with this go-to prompt:

"I'd like you to suggest ways to improve the prose of this Wikipedia article draft text by: enhancing readability and improving the flow of the text; clarifying meaning; neutralising emphatic language; avoiding typical LLM words, including "crucial", highlight", "underscore", "showcase", "notable", "significant", "remarkable", "interesting" (and their variations); and reducing redundancy. Give your suggestions in the form of bullet-pointed before/after sentences."

It's remarkable how much fluff can often be trimmed away without sacrificing meaning. Cheers, Esculenta (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Museum award

The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award
Congrats TheTechnician27! You've received an Auckland Museum Wiki-Award for promoting the New Zealand crab species Ovalipes catharus' page to good article status. Well done! --Prosperosity (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This little echinoderm is probably my favorite award I've gotten so far (including the Triple Crown), and I'll find a way to display it proudly. I'm hoping tentatively to work on O. catharus some more until it meets the featured article criteria. Glad I can be a small help in your vast undertaking to document Aotearoan fauna. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gimme a break

[1]Look, obviously we don't want unsourced information that may be incorrect in an article, but gutting an article without first even trying to challenge any specific points that you may believe incorrect is not how it's done and I shouldn't have to explain that to someone with your level of experience. If there are specific items you think are incorrect or require verification, use {{cn}} to tag them, don't just go deleting half an article because you feel like it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both (I hope) know that's not how WP:V works. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. [...] Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." Not "If you see uncited material, slap a {{cn}} tag on and hope someone gets around to it in the next 10 years." This is the most fundamental, obvious principle that turned Wikipedia from what it was in the 2000s – a cesspool full of whatever crap anybody wanted to say that your high school teacher speaks of in hushed whispers – into a valid and respectable starting point for real, rigorous research. There are exceedingly few common exceptions for this, such as the 'Plot' section of a piece of media.
What you just described is bad practice (something I'm guilty of, but not something I actively insist is good) and rots article quality, simply because of Brandolini's law (here we can say "verify or refute"). If I go and add 10,000 words of uncited information to the article 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, I can't just object to your reversion by deciding that you need to challenge every individual statement I've written and let them simmer there uncontested but for a {{cn}} tag while someone fact-checks each individual one. That's why WP:V is written the way it is: because that model you're proposing has been tried, and it's untenable. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This really feels like you are doing this because you want to, not because you actually think the information you removed isn't correct. Which is pretty pointy. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V isn't about whether the content is correct; it's about whether it's verifiable. I didn't do what I did to make a point about WP:V or make it look bad; I did it because WP:V as written is policy which is both unambiguous in wording and intent and – as stated – very obviously the only way to keep Wikipedia even slightly maintainable (we've done this experiment before; it didn't work). "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and based on your comment on the article's talk page, you intend to see that through. That's commendable; hats off. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This "rules are rules, end of story" attitude is really tiresome. It's not just you, unfortunately there seem to be a number of users with sort of infelxible viewpoint. IAR is also a rule, you didn't need to come in and just wipe out most of an article because a rule said you could, not that you had to. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." As is categorically not the case here; the rule allowed me to maintain it and in no way prevented you from improving it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making yourself part of the story

And that's not a wise thing to do. I have no disagreement with your original nom. The sources were not great. But trying to delete Gizmodo references to the AfD is foolish, unproductive, and not the best wikibehavior; you're involved now. It's piss poor journalism, agreed, author AJ Dellinger attempting to paint inferences that your nom was in any way related to the previous day's violence. Lashing out for hits. That's his job. Sad. Truth is, odd stuff gets nominated on Wikipedia everyday. The social media short-stroking was entirely predictable. You are a part, so continuing to edit the page now isn't a good look for Wikipedia. Some in the public reasonably consider you having some motive, now, true or not. IMHO, you should stay off the page itself. Let uninvolved others do this. BusterD (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about the Streissand effect, but absent somebody else doing it (they weren't; that edit was live for 2.5 hours), it's everyone's responsibility to revert edits that directly contradict guidelines and policies or even outright vandalize the article. The Gizmodo article is definitely WP:UNDUE in the context of our article, and it baselessly uses this brief mention to construct an ulterior motive for the deletion discussion. This isn't personal; if it were literally any other editor, I would do the same thing.
Obviously, on a personal level removed from my editing decisions, I disagree with Dellinger's supposition in reference to Wikipedia that: "The extent of hiding who is in charge of these firms extends beyond just the company website." But that's never going to interfere with the edits I make; if I do some stupid shit that stirs up enough controversy to warrant inclusion, then I would gladly even make the edit to include it myself. The literal only thing I've had to materially gain from editing here for seven years is that this free resource I use is hopefully just a bit better. AJ (and apparently BlueSky users?), if you're somehow reading this:
Ironically, I'm probably more left-wing than and somehow have less sympathy for these executives than 90% of the commenters at the AfD discussion, so at this point, there's not a whole lot I can do except laugh this off and maybe petition for WP:AFDEQ to actually be enforced. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your statement. Removing your own username from live page space is certainly in bounds. I'd expect some echoes on this as well. Somewhere a troll... I may be away from keyboard for periods today, but call on me (or another admin) if I can help (or start an ANI thread when necessary). I can revel the username from page space, I think. BusterD (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notification: Syrian Civil War

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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, per these community-authorized general sanctions, there is a one-revert rule in place for all articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. This means that an editor in this area may make no more than one revert per article per 24 hour period, unless an obvious exception applies. Please let me know if you have any questions about this.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I've dealt a lot in the past in subjects that have these arbitration remedies. The only true reversion I've made thus far as immediately after it was EP'd. Following that, I reverted my own content about the multiple cities in order to facilitate a more lead-like focus on the broader events, and then I performed a partial revert of GhostOfDanGurney's edit, suspecting that they wanted to revert to the previous infobox, not to specifically revert what I had written in the lead. I do still appreciate the heads-up, though, since this just now changed over. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hello, editor, I noticed you recently participated in a discussion of a requested move for the article Brian Thompson (businessman). There is a new discussion open at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman) § Killing of Brian Thompson, and I'd like to invite you to participate. Thank you. BarntToust 19:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

insulting language

Please try to keep your edit descriptions productive - the vitriol isn't useful. Thank you for your work. Jerimee (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FFDs

Hi there. I figured I'd take this offline from Iruka13's page and avoid any semblance of WP:GRAVEDANCING. Regarding your original post, a case at WP:AN would be more appropriate than an RfC, if you find it still necesssary. I haven't looked to see what other areas they might be active, but something like a WP:TBAN on FFD noms might be an option. On the other very WP:AGF hand, it's their first block on en.WP, so a week break hopefully brings new perspective to them, especially given their indef block at Commons. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help on WikiProject

Thanks for replying me in the Teahouse, related to making an inactive WikiProject active. I'll do as you suggested. — Taabii (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socratic Barnstar for you!

The Socratic Barnstar
I have zero involvement with the topic I’m giving this for as I was just randomly scrolling, but I believe you deserve this award for presenting an eloquent and convincing argument on the recent RFC at Talk:San Francisco concerning infobox images. You managed to combat some of the frustratingly stubborn comments from long-time editors without breaching civility, which I find impressive :) 296cherry (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! I was pleasantly surprised because I was afraid, due to the inflammatory Reddit post, that it would be brigaded with flimsily argued or harassing comments. But the nature and pace of the participation overall felt really organic. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

The Fauna Barnstar
For working thru fauna (and flora) articles! Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh, I actually hadn't checked my page until today when I got randomly trouted, and I completely missed this. Thank you so much! I honestly don't know how this happened; one day I stumbled across Cryptolithodes typicus, and I fell down a rabbit hole for like four years. Haha TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fallen down a similar rabbit hole for plant-related articles ;-). I noticed your work on Ovalipes catharus. Well done! Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

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.

Sury1997 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ovalipes catharus

On 1 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ovalipes catharus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the major prey groups of the paddle crab, Ovalipes catharus, is other paddle crabs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ovalipes catharus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ovalipes catharus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

– 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 12:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology

Hey. I just finished reading what you wrote about my name submission. I was unaware of the common consensus to keep the name at all, and was also unaware of the BIKESHED policy. I can remove that suggestion if that is the best course of action, but I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't have any bad faith intentions. Sorry :/ Therguy10 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIKESHED isn't a policy, just so you know. It's just an WP:ESSAY*, and I wasn't trying to disparage what you were doing as something intentionally malicious. "Bikeshedding" is just a behavioral pattern that groups often fall into when they're earnestly trying their best to find the best way to do something. I've done it; everybody's done it, and what is or isn't bikeshedding is arbitrary. I suggest that you keep the discussion up, because further establishing consensus is still a good thing. I'm sorry that I came across so harshly; that wasn't my intent. *(Essays are just pages about various aspects of Wikipedia authored usually by experienced editors, and widely cited ones often reflect some underlying consensus, but they don't reflect anything official.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh thanks for the clarification on Bikeshedding. I'll keep the question up.
(also I hope I didn't come across as over-sensitive; your response was perfectly fair!) Therguy10 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTechnician27&oldid=1267967267"