User talk:Electricmemory

Welcome!

Hi Electricmemory! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! GoldRomean (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! Electricmemory (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hi Electricmemory! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. EoRdE6^(Talk) 03:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6 I'm guessing I misread what it actually said. If it said the correct thing then my fault. I assumed it didn't.Electricmemory (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR applies regardless of whether your edit right or wrong so just be careful EoRdE6^(Talk) 03:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it okay, my fault, you can stop now Electricmemory (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I didn’t ever edit anything I only fix the 2 incidents that happened on January 28 because it was mentioned twice. Thanks you for your concerns. AVA Navigate (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AVA Navigate Huh? Electricmemory (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2025 Aviation it mentioned me for a non-constructive edit from ivebeenhacked and also mention your name and it sent me here when I wanted to (talk) AVA Navigate (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways I meant to be talking to ivebeenhacked I guess. AVA Navigate (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zhuhai Jinwan Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanbao Township. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Electricmemory (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Izaan Qureshi

Hello Electricmemory, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Izaan Qureshi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Would not requre a fundamental rewrite. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Electricmemory, given your short tenure with this account, you may want to dial back the lectures to long-term editors on how to edit effectively.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is this in reference to? Electricmemory (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire conversation at User talk:Cannolis.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning to lecture anyone. Electricmemory (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You templated them and then proceeded to lecture them on how to patrol vandalism and warn others. You also stated in that conversation that you have a history of your reports at AIV being declined because you hadn't left enough warnings, despite the fact that you have only actually ever made two reports to AIV with this account, neither of which have even been actioned as of the time I'm writing this. If this is some sort of clean start, you need to slow down.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my mistake. I'm sorry. Electricmemory (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to second this, as I'm also a longtime editor who doesn't appreciate being lectured to by a newbie either. There's no rule that disabling categories on draft pages is mandatory while removing them outright is forbidden — they're both valid responses, and are both useful in different circumstances.

For one thing, the kind of newbies who don't understand that drafts aren't allowed to be in categories quite frequently also didn't put the categories where categories are supposed to be — drafts often have their categories placed somewhere in the middle instead of at the end, or in multiple different places within the article (e.g. I frequently come across drafts where somebody used something like ==[[Category:Biography]]==, ==[[Category:Career]]== or ==[[Category:Personal life]]== as the section headers).

Or they place drafts in redlinked categories that don't even exist at all, or in categories that the page wouldn't belong in even if it were a finished article (e.g. filing a musician directly in Category:Music) — but those always have to be removed rather than disabled, because if the page gets moved with a bad category on it then I'm still going to have to come in for another round of category cleanup again in the future. So even if I'm just disabling categories, I still have to remove some regardless, because a bad category like that needs to come off now rather than waiting for me to have to make a return visit to the same page days or weeks later, so I would have to take even more extra time to assess whether each individual category needs to be removed or just disabled.

So removing categories just entails hitting a few minus signs in HotCat, while disabling categories requires reviewing each individual category and then searching through the page to find it, which means that just disabling categories can take up to five or six times longer than just removing them. Sure, it doesn't seem like that much of a burden to take the extra time if you're just thinking about the one or two drafts you saw — but the thing you need to understand is that because the reports for categorized draft and user pages only run once per week, I have to clean up several hundred of them at a time, meaning that it's already a two or three hour job as it is, and would become a ten to twenty hour job if I did it the longer way. But needless to say, I don't have a responsibility to devote that much time to it, and am entitled to get it done the quicker way.

Sure, if you come across one categorized draft in the process of other editing, then feel free to just disable the categories, because the little bit of extra time involved won't be an excessive burden on your time — but when I'm having to deal with a batch of hundreds of categorized drafts all at once, investing that same little bit of extra time on every page in the entire batch would add up to an extreme burden on my time. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat Unfortunately I have to disagree (and agree with everything Marbe166 said) because no matter how much time it takes, what you are doing still does effectively amount to vandalism. I have the right to say that and the right to say that you're putting too much emphasis on how much time it takes you and not enough emphasis on how detrimental it is to others. The mere fact it takes a long time to complete does not excuse doing it in an improper manner. Electricmemory (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is simply no rule that disabling categories on drafts is mandatory while removal is forbidden, so I absolutely don't accept that it's an "improper manner" at all. It does not effectively "amount to vandalism", while conversely putting drafts into categories in the first place does amount (not just effectively, but actually) to disruption — minor disruption that doesn't immediately merit punishment at first, granted, but becoming more serious if the page returns to categories (as happens not infrequently) a second, third or fourth time.

There's also nothing detrimental about the straight-up removal of redlinked categories that don't exist, or incorrect categories that the page wouldn't belong in even if it were in mainspace, and there's no argument to be had that such kludge should be left on a draft just because the creator put it there. The only argument anybody's ever tried to give me in favour of not worrying about that kind of stuff is that "the AFC reviewers are competent enough to catch that when they approve the draft" — but drafts frequently get arbitrarily moved into mainspace by their creators or other non-reviewer editors without waiting for AFC review, or have merely-disabled categories undisabled to put the draft back into the same categories. So such categories have to come off the page immediately, not just deferred for future removal, because they're just going to turn into further rounds of repeat cleanup.

And as for the time argument, that's a double-edged sword that doesn't cut the way you think — because if you're only concerned with the minor inconvenience to you on one page, and don't care at all about the size of job left behind for other people who have to deal with the cleanup across hundreds of pages, then it's not so clear that I'm the person in the equation who's being "uncollaborative" or "detrimental".

But I simply don't accept the argument that it's "improper" to remove categories from drafts instead of merely disabling them, and I don't accept the argument that having some concern for the amount of time I have to spend on a necessary maintenance task, instead of willingly making it an all-day job, makes me any kind of bad guy. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd share the report you're using I'd work on it myself. Electricmemory (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports#Categories Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this relevant...? I fail to see where that contains drafts with categories. Electricmemory (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine, Minnesota

Hey there. Probably easier just to nuke all the COI edits. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 I was already halfway asleep when I came across that mess, I didn't wish to nuke something I wasn't certain about. Thanks for handling it yourself :) Electricmemory (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Electricmemory! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Userpage question, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Darrell Wallace

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darrell Wallace. 162 etc. (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Electricmemory! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2025

News and notes: Administrator elections up for reapproval and 1bil GET snagged on Commons

Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World

Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year

In the media: The end of the world

Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read

Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing

Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?

Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors

Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars

Essay: The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source

Obituary: Ümüt Çınar (Kmoksy) and Vinícius Medina Kern (Vmkern)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic edits

Hello, Electricmemory. I've noticed that you've made hundreds of AWB edits that change the capitalization in U.S. census links that do not affect the displayed text at all. These fall under the category of "cosmetic edits" and are strongly discouraged, as they clog watchlists and have no actual value; a functional redirect is completely fine to leave alone. Please try to slow down and only run AWB scripts for edits that will have actual changes to the displayed text or improve the articles themselves. Sounder Bruce 05:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SounderBruce, the AWB setup I'm running is fixing both visible and non-visible mis-capitalized links. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations you'll see that dump does not separate the two. If there were a way to only fix the necessary ones using AWB I would, but that doesn't appear to be possible. Electricmemory (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to ignore the purely cosmetic edits if you slow down and do not autoclick. Per WP:AWBRULES, "insignificant or inconsequential edits" are not allowed and may be considered abuse of the AWB permissions. Again, please be more careful. Sounder Bruce 06:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing out the non-visible edits also makes it far easier for the more necessary edits to be found, and has been requested more than once on the AWB board. I believe it's fair in this specific situation. I'm not sure how to get the flag thing that hides my edits from RecentChanges, if you'd care to enlighten me it'd be much appreciated! Electricmemory (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not convinced. This seems like a clear violation of the AWB rules of use to me, especially since you've continued doing it after SounderBruce's comment. I've revoked AWB access. (This was brought to my attention at User talk:Pppery#New AWB user making mass cosmetic edits). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery I've sent you a couple of other related messages. AWB is quite a nice tool for tedious tasks here, and I was attempting to help with maitenance, so I ask you to kindly reconsider, thank you. Electricmemory (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I will not be regranting you AWB access. You are welcome to return to WP:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser and see if another admin feels differently, or appeal my removal to Wikipedia:Administrative action review. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question... I'm still confused on how it's an issue given it's allowed per WP:COSMETICEDIT. I will be asking someone else to review. Electricmemory (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]