User talk:voidxor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The Lady Vanishes (2013 film)

With reference to your edit summary, "Revert the wholesale revert by Timothy Titus and make necessary fixes. If somebody makes an error when working to improve the encyclopedia, fix that error. Don't revert all of the other things they improved.", with respect, you assume that the other part of your original edit is an improvement, which is not a "given". I believe it read better in the original form, although I do not propose reverting your edit. This is merely an explanation, for your information. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Timothy Titus: That's fine, and it certainly explains why you reverted the whole change. Your stated reason, though, was the grammatical error that I introduced ("destroying syntax"). Had that been your only reason, a partial revert would have sufficed. Either way, you could have at least left the {{Citation needed}} tag.

Thank you for the full explanation, though. I do care about your thoughts and opinions.

As far as which phrasing is better, I feel we needn't repeat the film's title twice when discussing the release date. Both sources call the film by the same name; only the dates differ. Generally, I believe it's preferable to reduce wordiness, while still conveying the same points. That's why I made the change. What did you like better about the previous wording? I'd be glad to self revert for cause. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Voider. In general (unlike you) I prefer fuller wording; I believe texts legitimately and helpfully abbreviated in the cause of brevity can often lose essential nuance as a result. The loss of the actual wording The Lady Vanishes (2013) and its replacement with a reference to a listing of 2013, is very minor, and will perhaps be less clear only to those whose minds work the way my mind works - and for all I know, that may be a very few people indeed! I am well aware that this is merely a difference in style - there are so many areas on this project where stylistic differences between editors of different temperaments are a cause of friction! However, I totally understand your style and your position. I would not suggest one is better than the other - they are just different. The old wording read better to me, the new wording reads better to you. Fully accepted! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Timothy Titus: I think we're in agreement that it's better to be less verbose, as long as nuance isn't sacrificed in the process of simplifying text. My question is: What nuance did I accidentally discard when rephrasing the sentence? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

About Nebraska

Hello, please if you have a time, pay attention to this topic. Thanks in advance. M.Karelin (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. M.Karelin (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page headers and archiving

Hello! Just as a note, you might be interested in a discussion I've started, Template talk:Talk header § Arbitrary placement. IMHO, having a {{Talk header}} only helps on any talk page, and the template documentation should actually be changed to suggest such placement (except on totally empty talk pages, of course).

IIRC, the documentation for the automated archiving suggests a few default configuration values to be specified whenever User:MiszaBot/config is placed on a talk page, despite the fact they're already set by default. Maybe those parameters shouldn't be removed, as who knows what kind of changes in possible in the future, and why they have been suggested to be set explicitly. Also, I've always seen "old" values such as 31 and 61, and very rarely 30 and 60; who knows, maybe that's up to some old discussion or something. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll hold off on changing any further configs on the talk pages I frequent. I changed it from 31 to 30 days because, while the documentation at User:MiszaBot/config uses 31 in an example, {{Auto archiving notice}} uses 30 in an example. Since the examples contradict each other, I made an executive decision to go with the round number.  ;-) – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 02:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Please don't get me wrong, I'd also be much happier with round values for the "old" parameter. Maybe you'd like to start a discussion about the discrepancy in "old" value examples, and I'll support you regarding the round numbers? Unless there are some technical or logical advantages of those "round + 1" values, round values would be a much more logical choice. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I just got my doctor to rewrite a 30-day prescription as a 90-day one, so I clearly have round numbers on the brain. I'll start such a proposal on Monday. Or maybe, I'll just make the change to the User:MiszaBot/config documentation and cite {{Auto archiving notice}} in my edit summary. I've become a lot more confident at being bold recently. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 03:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope that the prescription you're mentioning isn't for anything serious. I'd say that you can freely go with changing the documentation to round numbers, but I'd still suggest that you also start a discussion, which might also ask for comments on why the examples specify default values for a few parameters. Maybe some of the bots (used?) to archive posts older than 30 days only if 31 is specified as the parameter value, or who knows what's the history of the whole thing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Nah, just allergies. I changed the example in the documentation, but don't quite follow what you're proposing I propose. Why don't you propose it and let me know if you'd like me to comment. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, please have a look at User talk:Misza13 § Round "old" numbers. If that yields some responses, then we should be able to also check about the default parameter values. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

AWB access granted

Hey Voidxor, I have approved your AWB access request. As a general reminder, make sure to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual for using AWB. Be sure to mindfully review each of your edits in this process; the automated elements of the tool, are meant to supplement your efficiency as a hands on editor, Sadads (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you – voidxor 01:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Virtual disk

Hello! Any chances, please, to have a look at the discussion taking place on Talk:Virtual disk § Requested move 11 July 2015? I was also invited there, and I feel that we'd need input from more technically inclined editors. Any comments there would be appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done – voidxor 21:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your general diligence, orientation to details, and true teamwork approach. Keep up the good work! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Awe! Thank you buddy. I'm amazed as of late at just how well we work together! Let's both keep up the good work. Hopefully we'll get the chance to meet some day at a meetup or editathon. Thanks again! – voidxor 19:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Of course, I'd like to meet you in person, but I'm in a small country far, far away... We'll see what the future holds. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please take a look at the refs on the article Anna Bråkenhielm. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I tidied the formatting a little, but it looks really good to me. Is there anything specific you'd like me to look at? – voidxor 00:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about duplicate efficacy link in Light-emitting diode

You're right about the definition of WP:OVERLINKING; I should have linked to WP:REPEATLINK.. which happens to be the same MoS section. Regarding the duplicate link, I thought one duplicate wasn't a bad thing for an term so important in the article; as the MoS says "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead". Given how far the table was from the link in the lead, it seemed helpful.

I'd actually like to put it back. Do you disagree? (If you do, we'll move this whole thing to the talk page.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree; I probably shouldn't have removed the link from the table. The reason for the exceptions that you list is that readers often skim the article instead of reading it from beginning to end. Thus, they're more likely to first see an interesting term in tables or image captions than in the prose of the article. You're welcome (encouraged, in fact) to put the link back in the table. Conversely, though, I was correct to remove duplicates from the see-also section.

Ever consider registering a username, in order to start building an editing reputation? You're obviously doing good work here, so I'd encourage you to join. – voidxor 18:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, done. I did it as a partial undo to make the edit history clear.

IPThis user thinks that accounts are overrated and would much rather edit from an IP address. ±

71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

More like, "This user hides behind obscure numbers which are subject to (1) changing at any time, (2) being shared with other editors (some of which may be productive and others destructive), and, more rarely, (3) being used as a sockpuppet of a username, in order to tilt consensus discussions in their favor." But I digress. Thanks for repairing my error! – voidxor 21:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Smoke detector

I don't know if I'm actually talking to the editor of the smoke detector page. but there have been many changes over the past 5 years that concern me. names of the inventors and how the smoke detector came about. the ionized smoke detector and how it actually works and how it was invented and by who. I was there working at static roll corporation in Lakewood when the smoke detector was invented it came from an original static control device. there needs to be a lot of editing, Duane Pearsall's daughter would buceta back by how much this has changed there used to be photographs of the first smoke detector and how it worked what happened to those, contact me at. Bennettpettersson@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1906:7D94:0:2C:B4BB:A801 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are talking to an editor of the smoke detector article. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and nobody nobody owns a given article. I'm not sure that I'm responsible for any of your concerns. As you may know, each article has an associated talk page which is intended for fruitful discussion about the development of that article. The appropriate place to voice your concerns, and get the attention of all editors working on the smoke detector article, is Talk:Smoke detector. Be sure to place your comment at the bottom of that talk page, in a new section, and then sign it by placing four tildes (~~~~) after it. Generally, we strive for transparency and discourage this kind of dialog from taking place via email. – voidxor 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on 10 Gigabit Ethernet

I understand your motives on just using "hub" for a repeater device as it's common and usually used for a multiport repeater. However, the term "switching hub" is also very common. Literally, "hub" is just a central network device with no distinction to its inner workings – many times it just isn't important at all. But it is here and I think WP should be a bit more precise than people might be in daily life. --Zac67 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Self reverted. Fine. In my experience in the United States, simply saying "hub" or "switch" is enough to make that distinction. But I'll yield that two words that are mutually exclusive in my jurisdiction might be synonymous or ambiguous in yours. – voidxor 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edit Summary

Redrose64 added "..especially on First Great Western ('Worst Late Western')" First Great Western has been re-branded as Great Western Railway so this sentence fragment is outdated. Mainline421 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No! As we've been trying to tell you, that was already there. – voidxor 00:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't! [[1]] Mainline421 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mainline421: you're talking nonsense again. The revision of the article you just linked does in fact contain the text, "...especially on First Great Western ('Worst Late Western')." – voidxor 20:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mainline421: I did not add that text, and I can prove it. Just ask. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Blank lines in discussions

Please do not insert blank lines in threaded discussions, as you did here. It goes against WP:INDENTGAP, and is an accessibility issue. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit summary and self reverted nearly immediately. I'll follow the guideline but should point out that it makes the wikicode harder to read and makes paragraph breaks within a given comment virtually nonexistent. – voidxor 00:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I made a couple small tweaks, but it generally looks good. – voidxor 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

TAFI

If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a quick look. Although I generally don't mind being asked to weigh in on something, you're getting in the habit of asking me weekly. With all due respect, please note that I didn't sign up for TAFI, and unfortunately cannot commit the time, so this week's will be the last. Thanks for your understanding. – voidxor 21:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Alleged violation of MOS:LINUX

Hi, I don't really want to get into the specifics of whether the edit you reverted was "right" in calling software distributions like Trisquel "GNU/Linux", but I should point out that MOS:LINUX doesn't really apply in the way you claimed in those edit summaries. What it says is that The Linux name alone should not be changed to GNU/Linux, but it specifically states that this practice does not apply to proper names of individual operating system; e.g. "Debian GNU/Linux". Trisquel's official name is, in fact, "Trisquel GNU/Linux", so it would seem to fall exactly under the explicit exception that MOS:LINUX specifies. LjL (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: As you point out, Debian is a very notable example of this. Yet the article's not at Debian GNU/Linux; it's at Debian. The boldface mention of Debian in the lede sentence omits the official "GNU/Linux" as well. Why? Because sometimes the formatting guidelines on Wikipedia differ from what's official. MOS:LINUX is one such guideline. Others include MOS:TMRULES, which says to omit the official "Inc." or "LLC" from mentions of companies and their article titles, and WP:COMMONNAME, which says to select what to name articles based on how the topic is most commonly written. The standard test for that is Google search results. While a search for "Trisquel" gets 408,000 results, "Trisquel GNU/Linux" gets only 75,100. Of course, every webpage that has "Trisquel GNU/Linux" will be in the search results for "Trisquel" as well, so we'll subtract 75,100 from the former. That's still 333k versus 75k. So per WP:COMMONNAME, just as with Debian, the article should be at Trisquel regardless of what is technically the official name. – voidxor 02:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The "standard test" is flawed in many ways, as innumerable debates on article moves have shown; in any case, yes, WP:COMMONNAME may very well apply here. It's just that MOS:LINUX doesn't; in fact, it says almost the exact opposite. All I'm saying is, if we're going to revert someone's edits with a Wikipedia policy or guideline as rationale, it would be best if it were the right policy. LjL (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Likewise, "it would be best" if an endless army of Stallwarts [sic] didn't join Wikipedia purely to drive a unilateral agenda. Trisquel and other Linux-related articles have had long history of such edits, and I was simply following the precedents established in the history of that article, which cited MOS:LINUX in their edit summaries. If you want to hang me for moving quickly when cleaning up after such editors, go ahead, but it's not helpful. The correct forum for gaining consensus is the article's talk page. That way everybody gets a change to weigh in and guidelines can be reviewed, rather than arguing with each and every editor individually. – voidxor 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want me to make a ruckus on the talk page for you citing a bogus reason for undoing edits, fine, but I thought since in the end your edit is good - just the cited reason for it isn't - I would mention it here. Rationales matter, bogus rationales don't help anyone. MOS:LINUX is patently not the right rationale for this, it spells out as much. LjL (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: The heck do you want from me? As you say, my edit was good. Hindsight's 20/20, but I can't go back and change my edit summary.

Look at the article's history, buddy. I'm not the only one who has cited MOS:LINUX. Clearly several editors have done so, of which I am just one. If you want to address that precedent, then make your argument in a common forum where all participants can see it, rather than singling out individual editors and using inflammatory weasel words like "bogus" and "alleged". Make your argument based on facts, not by hurling insults along the lines of, "You did it wrong!" It's in the past; stop lecturing me about the past and start worrying about the future of the article. – voidxor 21:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I lectured you once, by pointing out that your rationale was wrong. You were expected to acknowledge it and move on. You're the one now dragging the situation on. You could, like, chose to accept that you made a mistake (which was the only thing I wanted to make you aware of it the first place), and stop placing the blame on me for pointing it out. The fact that other people made the same mistake before, by the way, doesn't justify going along without reading the actual policy. LjL (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd read the policy, of course. Why would I cite it without knowing what it is? A mistake is an error you refuse to correct. I didn't make a mistake; I made an error. I don't deserve to be lectured because of an error. Nor am I required to do whatever you say I am "expected" to do. Nor are other editors.

I am not the one dragging this out; you are. You incessantly point out others' errors on their talk pages and don't let up until they confess to their "crimes". This is my talk page, and you keep coming here to defame me. For every lecture you post on my talk page, I am entitled to a reply. Ergo, stop lecturing me and others and these arguments will cease. – voidxor 22:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

DEFAME you! You are sounding ridiculous... yeah, I will stop, you're not worth my time. LjL (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Cite web}} vs. {{Cite news}}

Hey. Are you aware that {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} have become 99.99% similar? So, the rule of thumb is: Unless your source is offline, use "Cite web" instead. Fleet Command (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Can you cite a policy or a guideline that says that? If so, I'll gladly change my practice. Also, I don't follow the, "Because A and B are similar, you must use A," implication. – voidxor 21:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In terms of rendering, a choice between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, when the source is online, is just as meaningful as a choice between lowercase "cite" and first-caps "Cite". I just thought you might enjoy having one less decision to make. If you don't feel comfortable changing your practice and keep making the extra albeit inconsequential decision, please be my guest! The only policy that will force you to choose one of the two consistently is WP:FACR. This was just an FYI comment from a friend to a friend. Fleet Command (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I wouldn't have made this edit if, when I did it, knew that you had made a dedicated opposite change. I assure, I won't revert you over trivial matters like this ever again. Fleet Command (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I'm always game for constructive criticism from my peers, so I appreciate you having my back. However, your original comment (above) and edit summary allude to {{Cite web}} being a requirement over its sister templates whenever |url= is used. Had you cited such a requirement, I wouldn't have reverted. If you cite such a policy, I'll self revert. Can you be more specific as to the location within WP:FACR? I can't find anything in there. And there is a rendered difference between the two templates, by the way: the parenthesis around the location and publisher. – voidxor 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that. The main difference is when a |url= is absent, {{Cite web}} returns an error. {{Cite news}} renders alright. There is one other difference too; something about |date=, which I forgot. (I think in {{Cite news}}, the placement of date is different depending on the presence or absence of a publisher.)

WP:FACR part 2c, says "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted [~snip~]". That's it; the slight negligible difference between the two template is now so negligible that it is considered a mere inconsistency and ground for FA rejection. (It happened to me.) I think this was not the case before 2012; back then, people cared a lot about choosing them properly. FA is supposed to be strict you know. FA process can reject your article unless it "exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing".

My edit in the article was a so-called educational edit: To inform my pals that, if they want to, they can have an easier time not having a dilemma. But you don't need to self-revert or anything. Your comfort was my only concern. Fleet Command (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Although we don't see the answer in policy, I'll defer to your FA experience (of which I have none). I've self reverted and certainly don't want to leave any feeling of ill will. Can you link me to that FA rejection please? I believe you, but would like more insight into why {{Cite web}} is suddenly preferred for nearly every situation. To answer your original question, yes, I was aware that the templates have grown more and more alike. I wish they'd get the deed done and over with and just merge them already. But for the moment, they are still two different templates and the ref toolbar lists them separately. I've even schooled new users on when to use which template at editathons. – voidxor 02:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, here are the links:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1 (Rejected)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2 (Successful). Look for comment by Nikkimaria: "Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting. Compare for example FNs 50 and 51, or 55 and 56, or 22 and 63". Four hours later, the issue is resolved by User:Malleus Fatuorum.

Of course, it was 2012 back then and Malleus resorted to disposing of |work= instead to achieve the consistency and to get the clearance for FA. (You can't find a single |work= in this revision: [2]) It wasn't until seven days later when Codename Lisa completed more negotiations and discovered that the solution was to move to the unified use of {{Cite web}}. ([3]) The article was already FA at this time but it received an FA review 23 days later. If you look at the rendering result of the first diff, you see that in retrospect, Codename Lisa was right to move to Cite web, because the Malleus's hack is no longer generates consistent results with today's templates.

If I am not mistaken, Lua came to being in February 2013 and it was then that the unification efforts started.

As a matter of fact, if you wish, you can uniformly use {{Cite news}} instead of {{Cite web}} in an article and still achieve this consistency score in FA. After all, these two support all of one another's parameters. The problem starts with the newcomers who come, look at the sources, say "this is not a news site" and replace it with "cite web". As you can see, the only concern here is common sense. But maybe I should give the ultimate unification idea a nudge.

Fleet Command (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Splitting hairs like this is exactly why I've never attempted to push an article through the FA process. Yes, consistency is generally a good thing, but why dumb down our templates in order to achieve a few characters more consistency? I don't get it personally. Thank you for the info, though. Going forward I'll just use {{Cite web}} unless there's no URL. However, I'm not going to "correct" such existing inconsistencies without a policy to tell me to do so. If these editors are so bugged by it, they can fix it. Happy editing (and Thanksgiving, if you're in the U.S.)! – voidxor 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 100% of that! Fleet Command (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Trains Portal and Railways Portal Merger Proposal

You seem to be well acquainted with rail transport material, so I'd like your input on this proposal I made here: Portal talk:Railways#Trains Portal and Railways Portal Merger Proposal. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. – voidxor 21:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for Light-emitting diode

I have requested a peer review for the Light-emitting diode article. Apparently, my issue is that the article makes little to no distinction on green vs. pure green LEDs, even though the former has existed since the 1970s while the latter wasn't introduced until the 1990s. The article seems to consider both to be one in the same, even though they are not. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andros 1337: Yeah, that article is still rough around the edges. My availability isn't very good right now, but let me know if you want me to weigh in on a !vote or something. – voidxor 23:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of reliable information on the Shebang (Unix) article

Hi, please inform yourself about what reliable sources are. What you removed are no personal websites but the most reliable information that is available in the net. Schily (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I seem more informed than you as to what reliable sources are, and aren't. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE (again, please read it), personal websites—meaning websites or sections of websites controlled entirely by one person with no review process—are not reliable sources. As you pointed out, http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/ is entirely controlled by one person, Sven Mascheck. Thus, it cannot be used as a reference. Stop simply reverting me and explain why you feel policy should be ignored in this case. Furthermore, and as I said in my previous edit summary, the correct forum for such an explanation is the article's talk page, not my talk page! We want all interested editors to have a chance to chime in. – voidxor 18:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

With your interpretation, we would need to remove all references to fsf.org as this is entirely controlled by a single person, Richard Stallman. But your claims cannot be found in the reference you have given, so you claims are void. Schily (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." That's from the second paragraph, so I'm not sure why you're struggling to find it.

And no, www.fsf.org is most certainly not a personal website. The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. It has several employees in dedicated office space. It's not at all the same thing as Mascheck's personal directory on www.in-ulm.de. – voidxor 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

XHTML

Hi, why did you do this? MediaWiki has not served XHTML for several years - it now serves HTML5, where the <br> and <br /> forms are equally valid. Also, what does it have to do with accessibility? As it's a list, an edit like this would significantly improve accessibility. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Because that's the way that it's done in 99% of infoboxes?! If that's not correct then you're welcome to update the syntax as you see fit (i.e. across all articles). I am not familiar with HTML5 and was unaware the servers had switched; I was just following the previously established norm. – voidxor 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Spats (footwear)

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Nice try, but I did not re-revert; I reverted for the first time. A "re-revert" is a second revert performed by a single user in a short period of time (i.e. 24 hours). The only person here who has re-reverted is you just now (hypocritically, I might add). 3RR only applies on the fourth such revert (a re-re-re-revert, to use your terminology). I got nowhere near that.

As to WP:BRD, that's an essay, not a policy nor even a guideline. Although you're citing it, you apparently haven't even read the first sentence: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus."

As to discussion, not all discussion occurs on an article's talk page. I have been making my case all along in my original edit summary, revert edit summary, and a pertinent thread I started on your talk page (although let the record reflect that you rapidly expunged my attempt at discussion and simultaneously came here to lecture me about failing to discuss). Again, and again, and again, and again, you've failed to counter my arguments on a point-by-point basis—choosing instead to troll with inarticulate and combative arguments such as "better before" and "Your layour sucks, it's made the article worse then it was. Our aim is to *improve* article not to make them worse." If you truly were committed to BRD, you would be articulating why we shall exempt one particular article from the wiki-wide policies and guidelines that I cited. – voidxor 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and BRD is somewhat inapplicable here because my original edit was not bold; it was a minor maintenance edit to bring the article in line with consensus-established style guidelines. These guidelines are critical to applying a consistent layout across all articles, and also for accessibility reasons (as is the case for WP:IMGSIZE). My edit didn't even affect the body of the article. I've made thousands of such edits and you are the only editor to take issue. If either of us is not here to move the article forward, it's you. – voidxor 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting User talk page comments

Did you know that reverting a user talk page comment which has been deleted by the user can be, and has been, considered to be disruptive editing, and that editors have been blocked for doing so? Please do not do so on my talk page again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Can you cite policy on that? You have yet to cite a single policy to justify any of your arguments. Also, would you mind explaining why you are intent on expunging the discussion that you accuse me of not having? I know you're adverse to meaningful edit summaries, but I feel I'm owed a little explanation. – voidxor 01:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just ask your favorite admin. BMK (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Voidxor, if you haven't already, please read WP:TPG for accepted guidelines regarding user talk page comments. Nowhere in that explanation will you see anything that resembles an editor's right to "ban" another editor from posting on their talk page or from pinging them. It's considered acceptable for an editor to request you no longer post on their talk page, it's considered wise to respond to that request; however, it can also be seen as hostile to make the request and for the individual on the receiving end of the request to ignore it. There's no bright-line rule in this area, and there is certainly a catch-22 involved, but it's probably best to use WP:COMMONSENSE in how to approach and respond while keeping WP:CIVIL always in mind. That said, anyone who is not an admin and not seeking for formal sanctions to use the word "banned" in the context of user talk pages is neither common-sense nor civil and such use of the word truly has no true weight except in the mind of the person issuing the proclamation. Hope this helps. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: While I knew most of that already, I always appreciate help navigating policy—especially when it comes to nuances like these. Thanks. Let the record reflect (because I'm not sure if you're suggesting otherwise) that I did not post to Beyond My Ken's talk page after he asked me not to (other than the mandatory ANI notification, of course). – voidxor 20:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, I have reverted your closing of your own thread. If you want to withdraw your ANI filing, do so at the bottom of the thread and let an uninvolved person close it. Do not close your own ANI thread unless you are going to simply state "Withdrawn". Anything more than that is involved POV and not allowed. Alternatively, the thread will be automatically archived by bot after 72 hours of non-activity. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Fine. I'm learning as I go and this was my first incident report. Thanks for clarifying. – voidxor 05:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Prodding talk pages - not valid

WP:PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages; it cannot be used with ... pages in any other namespace. Therefore, you can't do this. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do there. PROD isn't technically meant for talk pages because why would you delete a talk page without deleting the associated page as well. But in this case, there is no associated page; it's just an orphaned standalone talk page. We could move it to follow the parent talkpage's article, but it really should be deleted as was done for the sister glossaries. Would G8 apply? – voidxor 23:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There never was an associated page in main space, partly because mainspace doesn't permit subpages, but mainly because it was created as a subpage of what was then Talk:List of UK railfan jargon. That parent talk page was moved when the article was moved on 4 February 2011 but for some reason Ingolfson (talk · contribs) (who moved the main and talk pages) didn't move talk subpages as well. It's not orphaned since it has inward links, such as from Talk:Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms#Time for another cull? and from archived threads like Talk:Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms/Archive 1#The big move. So the best thing to do is to move it to bring them together again. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I never asserted that there used to be an associated page. I know the history. I'm sorry for using the word "orphaned" as that has other connotations around here; what I meant was "abandoned". Question is, how do I move to delete it as was done for the other "removed" pages? AfD doesn't apply to talk pages, PROD can't be used on talk pages, and G8 no longer applies now that you moved it. So yeah, I technically did the wrong thing by prodding it, but you have yet to tell me what the correct method is. Thanks. – voidxor 20:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You could try WP:MFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks! – voidxor 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

TMRULES

I presume you are right on this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twisted_pair&curid=80506&diff=734570811&oldid=734570670 The actual title of the reference is: Detailed Specifications & Technical Data which is completely useless, so I put in the name of what the paper is about, as written in the paper. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gah4: All I meant by referring to MOS:TMRULES is that we normally omit the trademark "TM". I didn't even see that the title of the paper was in the |website= parameter. Good call. Fixed. – voidxor 00:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes get confused about what should go in the fields of a reference. So far, I haven't used first or last name. I am not even sure that is the title, but it is what it says at the top of the page. Gah4 (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The answer

to this q: because a number of shortcuts don't work inside <ref>...</ref> and pipe trick is one of them. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yes, but why don't they work inside of ref tags? – voidxor 04:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Long-standing issue, see phab:T4700. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, a six-year-old bug! That's not cool. Thanks for the 4-1-1! – voidxor 04:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Refactor / removing others !votes

A !vote is not a vote. Re Talk:USB 3.0#Proposed merge with USB 3.1, IPs can comment. Also, per WP:REFACTOR please be aware that a contested refactor shouldn't be repeated. Stop now, else it may be seen as disruption, you're already at 2 contested refactors within 24hrs. Widefox; talk 21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: "Vote" is too synonymous with "!vote". We just typically say "!vote" around here to remind ourselves that such discussions are more about the merit of the argument than actual count of votes.^[1]

I'm not sure that scratching a disallowed vote counts as "refactoring", but if it does, then you have "refactored" twice too ([4], [5]), even though contested ([6], [7]). If you're going to come to my talk page to lecture me, please ensure you're not being hypocritical. – voidxor 22:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.". It's contested. Two editors are waiting for you to withdraw AGF. Restoring others opinions can be done by me, or I suggest you ask a third opinion / admin (2nd request). Until then, you are against consensus and this minute considered disruptive. This is not a moment for moral relativism. Widefox; talk 22:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So I'm "disruptive" and in bad faith because I disagree with you?! I've reverted twice and you've reverted twice. Again, hypocrisy. And I don't need a third-party opinion; I'm perfectly capable of reading and citing policies and guidelines. I'm waiting on you to show me where it says that IP addresses can vote. The one time you attempted to do that, you accidentally cited an essay that says that IPs can't vote, ergo proving my point and thus I reverted again. I was reverting because policy is on my side; you're simply edit warring. Don't want me to "refactor"? You could have just asked. Saying "please hold off on striking that vote until we figure out the relevant policy" would have sufficed, but instead you chose to start a parallel argument. – voidxor 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Come on, you know how it works around here - by consensus. Two others don't agree with you. Also, it's BRD not BRRD. If you want to clear up the bad faith accusations then we're waiting for a strike (a common approach here when one realises one's in such a situation). Taking this up on your talk is not to duplicate, but simply behavioural is offtopic there. Widefox; talk 07:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, two versus one is as close to 50-50 as you can get with only three opinions. That's not a consensus; that's a contested issue. The wider consensus (the one that matters) is expressed in the essay, which I believe is pretty clear that IPs can't vote. I've given you ample opportunity to cite a policy, guideline, or essay that says that IPs can vote, but you haven't. Instead you mount a Chewbacca defense. Sad.

How many times do I have to explain to you that I didn't accuse you of anything?! You're a bully; you beat people over the head with threats (e.g. "You're in violation! Stop now.") and demands (e.g. to censor my illustrative example) until they cave in and you ultimately get your way. Never mind the merit of the argument. Unfortunately, the harassment situation on Wikipedia is way out of control. I would appreciate if you leave my talk page now. You're obviously not here to discuss whether or not IP users can vote. – voidxor 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Where is it explicitly stated that IPs can't vote? I am only aware of two such places:

• Requests for Adminship, which at Expressing opinions says "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account."
• Arbcom elections, where the use of the "SecurePoll" extension necessarily restricts participation to those who are logged in; see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015#Timeline, item 2.

There are many discussions (for merges, deletions, etc.) where IPs have !voted and their comments have not just been left unstricken, they have been taken into account by the closing admin. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of the formation of the Universe

On Timeline of the formation of the Universe, you put Grand Unification Epoch related to Planck Epoch. I fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.8.22 (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, all you did was revert to the incorrect syntax. If you want to promote a level 4 heading to a level 3 heading, remove one of the equals signs before the section name, and one from after it. See Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections. – voidxor 05:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Voidxor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For your work on Vagus nerve, keeping it focused on referenced content is much appreciated. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. It's nice to feel appreciated! – voidxor 00:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

UUID

I do not know why there is a separate article for GUID and UUID. Probably it is for the proverbial "historical reasons", and if it were up to me, there would be only one article. I haven't worked on the GUID article, and in fact it has several problems, by the way.

The history here is that UUID's were invented by a team at Apollo in the 1980's for Apollo's Network Computing System. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, Paul Leach and others used a development of UUIDs in the Open Group's Distributed Computing Environment (DCE). A little later, Salz and others at Microsoft adopted the DCE UUIDs essentially without change for the Component Object Model and the Windows Registry, but decided to call them GUIDs. The only change made by Microsoft was to change the byte order from network byte order to little-endian byte order. Leach and Salz came together and wrote an Internet Draft spelling them out, including network byte order as "variant 1" and little-endian "native" byte order as "variant 2". Variant 2 in that Internet Draft was referred to as the "Microsoft GUID" variant, but apart from byte order and variant bits, Variant 1 DCE UUIDs and Variant 2 Microsoft GUIDs are identical. The Internet Draft eventually turned into RFC 4122.

Some years later, Microsoft changed its documentation, and started referring to variant 2 as the "legacy GUID format". Microsoft software now generates "GUIDs" which are just straight-up variant 1 UUID's, while continuing to use variant 2 as well, sometimes referring to those as "legacy" GUIDs. The current version of Microsoft's guidgen tool generates bog-standard Variant 1, Version 4 UUID's. Both variants are referred to as GUIDs in the Microsoft world. I tried to capture all this in the sentence which you reverted, which is that the term GUID is either a synonym for UUID, or sometimes refers to one particular variant of UUID. Apparently a legacy variant, though I didn't mention this, because I don't have good sources for it being entirely "legacy".

It isn't my fault that the GUID article exists and that it is confusing, and the existence of the GUID article shouldn't be a reason for anyone to think that GUIDs are somehow different from UUIDs. There is no real difference, other than terminological.

I am going to try to cover some of this in the article and I ask you kindly not to undo it again, because it is correct, and the wording which you apparently prefer does not capture the situation: "GUID" is not just a variant of UUID. Many of them, perhaps all the recently-generated ones, are in fact UUID's.

If you think I am wrong about all this (I'm not), please start a discussion on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.110.94 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong, but as long as GUID and UUID are separate articles, their introductions should not say that the two terms are synonymous. So rather than confusing the reader (which is what I just fixed) or lecturing me about it, the thing to do would be to propose a merger between the two articles. – voidxor 22:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Talk page for the GUID article discussed merger a couple of years ago, and that seemed to be the consensus. I am just an anonymous person interested in UUIDs and in making that article better. The article needs to say that UUIDs and GUIDs are the same thing, because that is the case, and it would be confusing not to say it. The GUID article needs to say the same, because what is true in the UUID article is true in the GUID article. It is not my problem that the two articles exist on Wikipedia, despite UUID and GUID being synonymous. If you want to propose the merger of the articles in some inner Wikipedia sanctum, and argue with people about it, have fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.110.94 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, as you've probably seen by now, I just closed that old merge discussion and performed the merge. Thank you for pointing out that discussion.

I sense your frustration, and agree that GUID and UUID are more or less synonymous. However, rewording the introductions of those articles to say as much was the wrong way to go about it; I said so (above) and partially reverted your changes. I even advised you on the correct way to deal with two articles about the same thing (a merger), but you impatiently didn't wait for that discussion to play out, and reverted my revert.

Wikipedia has been around a while, and has lots of processes to keep things running smoothly. It's not sanctimonious; it's just experience. Process is important! Ignoring it, as you did, tends to waste everybody's time, including your own. For instance, you just spent hours working on an article that even you were arguing needed to go away. – voidxor 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph which you reverted about randomly-generated node ids, as the paragraph itself stated, this is directly from RFC 4122 itself, as are almost all the rest of the details about UUIDs currently in the article. Having mentioned the RFC and provided links to it (wiki automatically makes any mention of "RFC 4122" a link) the article is not citing particular sections of the RFC for the various technical details. But if you would like to check, the section on randomly-generated node ids (including the detail about the multicast bit), is 4.1.6. This then refers to Section 4.5 which sets out how the random node ids can be generated. 4.1.6 says that random node ids should be used when there is no MAC address. 4.5 expands on this a bit by adding that random generation can be used when there is no IEEE 802 address (i.e. a MAC address), "or its use is not desired". 73.253.110.94 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right; I'm sorry. I viewed your diff in wikicode form, and thus didn't see the links. I'll self revert and add overt footnote-type citations to the RFC. – voidxor 04:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting this here, because it seems like you don't read the UUID talk page. Regarding version 1 UUID rollover, the time is a 60-bit number in 100-nanosecond intervals since 15 Oct, 1582 00:00:00.0 UTC. 60 bits of 100 nanosecond intervals is 3653.3877 years. Add that to the 1582 AD and you get 5235.39 AD The uuid program on Linux, when displaying v1 UUIDs, rolls over at March 31, 5236 AD, which is consistent. Surely, doing simple calculations is not "original research". Is it? Oddly, RFC 1422 states that the time rolls over in 3400 AD, "depending on the algorithm". This is an odd statement because (1) there is only one algorithm for time in the RFC, so it is hard to see what other algorithms it could depend upon; and (2) according to the one algorithm mentioned in the RFC, the rollover is 5236 AD not 3400 AD. It looks like at some point there was a different, or more than one, time algorithm, and the RFC was never updated. 73.253.110.94 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In trying to reconcile 5236 AD versus 3400 AD, I realized that 3400 AD is what you get if the 60 bit timestamp is a signed number, rather than unsigned. 73.253.110.94 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Obviously Wikipedia has lots of worked examples, particularly in math-related articles, and those needn't be cited. But the way you'd written it looked more like a fact than a derived example when I reverted it. Regardless, I like the way that you just redid it, attributing the rollover date to the RFC.

And I do read the talk page; I'm just less of a subject-matter expert than you and Andy. So I'm letting you guys direct the evolution of the article. My interest is more that Wikipedia policies are adhered to, and you are now doing a much better job of that. Speaking of which, thank you for all of your hard work on the article. – voidxor 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you are a beginner-level JavaScript programmer...

I found you listed at Category:User js-1 (probably because you posted the corresponding userbox on your user page), and thought you might be interested in improving your skills by getting involved with developing user scripts, hobnobbing with other JavaScript programmers, and organizing and improving JavaScript articles and support pages.

We do all of that and more at the JavaScript WikiProject.

Scripts undergoing development, and the state of JavaScript on Wikipedia, are discussed on the talk page.

For an overview of JavaScript coverage on Wikipedia, see Draft:Outline of JavaScript and Index of JavaScript-related articles. For everything on user scripts, see User:The Transhumanist/Outline of scripts.

The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library.

If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.

Hope to see you there! The Transhumanist 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Thanks for reaching out, but I've been too busy in real life to do much editing recently. If that changes I may look into the WikiProject. – voidxor 04:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

nested lists

Hello Voidxor, those lines are needed, because without them MediaWiki considers the description lists to be split there (as if there were a completely empty line instead of the lines with only a colon). So, after a nested list, there has to be such an additional line to get the result one would expect without them. Check it in the developer tools of your webbrowser (usually right-click, "inspect element" or similiar) ;-) --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 17:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nenntmichruhigip: Really? That seems like a bug in the MediaWiki software. I hate having to do workaround hacks like that. Anyway, I've partial self reverted. – voidxor 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree on it being a bug. Actually there’s already a ticket for it, but I don’t expect it to get fixed soon. I consider the workaround as tolerable to get valid markup in the meantime, because empty definitions are already silently dropped, so it probably won’t become an issue when the bug is fixed. --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 11:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Electrical contacts

You reverted the discussion of Forms D, K, X, Y and Z contacts on the basis that they were uncited. In fact, the citation at the head of the enclosing Contact Form section (to the Relay Handbook by the National Association of Relay Manufacturers and its successor, the Relay and Switch Industry Association) is the source for all of the contact forms. The citation you restored (to a data sheet from Matsushita) is one relay manufacturer's summary of the material relevant to their small-signal products. I don't see a need for Wikipedia to describe all of the relay and switch contact forms defined by the NARM/RSIA, but A, B and C are not enough. I want Form D described because the C/D comparison illustrates the issue of Make-Break order. Center-off switches (Form K) are common, while center-off relays are rare. Forms X and Y are common in toggle switches with ratings over 1/4 HP, and form X is extremely common in power contactors, for example, the contactor linking a thermostat to an air conditioiner compressor. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Douglas W. Jones: Since you duplicated the above comment in two different places, I am responding at Talk:Electrical contacts#Contact forms. – voidxor 19:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Fixing" other people's comments

Please don't "fix" other people's comments. Bright☀ 21:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the policy you are linking to before going around lecturing others: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. ... Examples include fixing indentation levels,..." – voidxor 03:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New railway glossary subpage?

Hi voidxor, thanks for the welcome message. I see that you are very much involved with the rail glossary page. I am working on a major European rail cooperation project which includes some development of topic specific glossaries. I think it would be great to make that content available on Wikipedia and possibly even lure the experts to work directly here. To be honest, I think many of the people in the industry already search for terms and content in Wikipedia because the relevant technical standards are typically locked away somewhere and it would take too long to find them or request them from someone. Anyway, I am thinking on how this could be done, as some of the terms are very topic specific, e.g. Automatic Train Operation. Do you think a sub-glossary for ATO would be a way to go? I think it could be more useful in this way, as people could read terms about a certain topic in one place and not swamp the general glossaries with such specific words.

Usually we reference technical standards or the EU railway authority. The glossaries are published as part of subsets, so new terms coined within the project will always reference the subsets. Out of curiosity: is there any case you know of, of experts using Wikipedia as their working tool? It is probably a silly question. For very conservative railway sector this would be a huge step towards openness and an improvement on current working methods. (Renatoar (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC))

@Renatoar: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. For full transparency, I should start by saying that I'm more of a Wikipedia expert than a rail expert. While I certainly appreciate rail technology, I don't work in that industry and am by no means an expert. My interest in the rail glossaries has been more in getting them up to Wikipedia's standards (everything cited, for example).

With that in mind, I'm not going to be to "talk shop" in your area of expertise. I can, however, provide guidance on Wikipedia's policies and procedures. My biggest concern with your proposal is the issue of notability. Wikipedia's notability policy requires topics to meet a certain threshold of mainstream attention before they are deserving of their own article, and I'm not sure a sub-glossary of ATO would meet that threshold.

Many experts do edit Wikipedia (I've actually worked with some librarians, professors, and scholars to do exactly that), but they need to do so from a perspective of helping to build an encyclopedia, rather than using Wikipedia as a venue to publish their original research. If you and your colleagues would like to build a repository of specific knowledge without constantly running into Wikipedia's requirements, I might suggest starting your own blog or wiki outside of Wikipedia (e.g. on Wikia).

Alternatively, if your goals are smaller scale to start, I'd just create a glossary section on the automatic train operation article. Just be sure to cite your sources. Happy editing! – voidxor 21:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That is precisely the type of advice that I need(ed). I have been busy with other stuff but I will get back to this in the next weeks. As long as things are on Wikipedia so everyone can consult them, it is fine really. Thanks! Renatoar (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Might be worth asking on wikt:WT:ID or wikt:WT:BP, whether the information would fit in Wiktionary’s scope. I’m afraid it might be inbetween Wiktionary’s and Wikipedia’s scope, though… --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Manifold sort

See wikt:manifold#Adjective. Wumbolo (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Thanks, but that doesn't answer the question of what a "manifold sort" is—specifically "the" manifold sort. If I simply hadn't been familiar with the word "manifold", I would have asked what that means, or better yet, looked it up. As is, "manifold sort" is too obscure of a term to even be defined on Wikipedia! – voidxor 02:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello, I'm BeywheelzLetItRip. I noticed that you recently removed content from Anonymous call rejection without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Bey WHEELZ ^Let It _RIP! 03:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@BeywheelzLetItRip: WTF?! I left detailed summaries in both of my edits to that page ([8], [9]). Vandalism-fighting tools like rollback, Twinkle, and templates should not be used simply because you take issue with good-faith edits or experienced editors. Please self revert. – voidxor 03:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: I noticed you are a beginner-level JavaScript programmer...

Our thread from last spring:

I found you listed at Category:User js-1 (probably because you posted the corresponding userbox on your user page), and thought you might be interested in improving your skills by getting involved with developing user scripts, hobnobbing with other JavaScript programmers, and organizing and improving JavaScript articles and support pages.

We do all of that and more at the JavaScript WikiProject.

Scripts undergoing development, and the state of JavaScript on Wikipedia, are discussed on the talk page.

For an overview of JavaScript coverage on Wikipedia, see Draft:Outline of JavaScript and Index of JavaScript-related articles. For everything on user scripts, see User:The Transhumanist/Outline of scripts.

The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library.

If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.

Hope to see you there! The Transhumanist 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Thanks for reaching out, but I've been too busy in real life to do much editing recently. If that changes I may look into the WikiProject. – voidxor 04:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Voidxor,

I've been writing userscripts since our last encounter, for viewing and developing outlines (navigation lists). I was wondering if you had any free time if you could beta test one or more of them. I've only tried them on Firefox on my 2 laptops.

So far, there is:

• User:The Transhumanist/OutlineViewAnnotationToggler.js – this one provides a menu item to turn annotations on/off, so you can view lists bare when you want to (without annotations). When done, it will work on (the embedded lists of) all pages, not just outlines. Currently it is limited to outlines only, for development and testing purposes. It supports hotkey activation/deactivation of annotations, but that feature currently lacks an accurate viewport location reset for retaining the location on screen that the user was looking at. The program also needs an indicator that tells the user it is still on. Otherwise, you might wonder why a bare list has annotations in edit mode, when you go in to add some. :) Though it is functional as is. Check it out. After installing it, look at Outline of cell biology, and press ⇧ Shift+Alt+a. And again.
• User:The Transhumanist/RedlinksRemover.js – strips out entries in outlines that are nothing but a redlink. It removes them right out of the tree structure. But only end nodes (i.e., not parent nodes, which we need to keep). It delinks redlinks that have non-redlink offspring, or that have or are embedded in an annotation. It does not yet recognize entries that lack a bullet (it treats those as embedded).

It is my objective to build a set of scripts that fully automate the process of creating outlines. This end goal is a long way off (AI-complete?). In the meantime, I hope to increase productivity as much as I can. Fifty percent automation would double an editor's productivity. I think I could reach 80% automation (a five-fold increase in productivity) within a couple years.

There's more:

• User:The Transhumanist/StripSearchInWikicode.js – another script, which strips search results down to a bare list of links, and inserts wikilink formatting for ease of insertion of those links into lists. This is useful for gathering links for outlines. I'd like this script to sort its results. So, if you know how, or know someone who knows how, please let me know. A more immediate problem is that the output is interlaced with CR/LFs. I can't figure out how to get rid of them. Stripping them out in WikEd via regex is a tedious extra step. It would be nice to track them down and remove them with the script.

I look forward to your comments, questions, ideas, and suggestions. The Transhumanist 09:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: please ping me so I don't miss your reply. Thanks. -TT

@The Transhumanist: Thanks for reaching out, but I'm still too busy in real life. Furthermore, I'm really not familiar with JavaScript. I started to play with it over a decade ago as a natural extension of my HTML skills, but haven't touched it since. I'll remove that userbox. Good luck in your productivity-increasing work, though. – voidxor 15:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Correction: I don't have that userbox, and am not in that category. You might want to update your mailing list. – voidxor 15:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. Looking back, it must have been added to the category from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Voidxor&oldid=774244632   Keep in mind I'm also looking for beta testers to see how well these scripts work. You might find the search result stripper especially useful. That one will definitely be expanded with new features over time. Like alphabetical sorting, etc. Feature requests are welcome. The Transhumanist 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Voidxor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Butkus on Exakta (and elsewhere)

Hi. Regarding this edit where you say "Look at their username! This is clearly spam and a COI." I was aware of their username (though I misspelled it in my edit) but I am under the impression that www.butkus.org provides a valuable resource in hosting camera manuals. Perhaps I am wrong but your decision might be worth another consideration. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: I might have been too quick to revert on that one, having not looked closely enough at their diff. At first glance, I thought they had added the link to their own website, which is against our spam policy. I have partial self reverted. However, this user clearly has a conflict of interest, and furthermore, Wikipedia accounts belonging to organizations (rather than people) are apt to get blocked from editing. – voidxor 01:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is in keeping with your thinking on this: User talk:Butkusmi#Conflict of interest policy. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Safety razor

Sorry for taking almost a whole year to notice this edit. (This is one reason why.)

I understand in principle why you did this, but I don't quite feel confident enough to simply give thanks, which is why I am asking for clarification instead.

The fact that you did not remove the anchor itself implies you agree it is nominally helpful to readers in general, not just those coming from Cracked.com. (For example, this includes users who have bookmarked a URL that contains the old anchor.) Am I understanding correctly?

For similar cases in the future, would it be appropriate to note the issue on the talk page? In this particular case, would it have been better to ask Cracked.com to fix their article—a request which they could have summarily ignored?

(I have no conflict of interest with Cracked.com or any of its current or former parent companies.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: As you said, I didn't remove the anchor itself. Thus, I guess I don't follow your concern. I can, however, speak to my reasoning (and no, it's not at all what you assert):

Removing or renaming an anchor is risky because there's no way to tell what pages link to that to that anchor. For this reason, best practice (per MOS:HEAD) is to document the source articles in a hidden comment near the anchor. It is not normal practice to do this for third-party websites. In fact, in twelve years of editing, this was the only time I've seen this. I removed the hidden comment (again, not the anchor) because I do not think Wikipedians should be in the business of catering to third-party websites. Think about it: Section headings automatically generate an anchor by the same name. Imagine one editor arguing to another, "We can't rename that section because third-party websites may refer to it." That would be terrible because third-party websites are outside of our control (as you point out), and the fear of breaking them could impede development of the encyclopedia. – voidxor 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be in agreement with the reasoning I had in my head; I just did not state it in the clearest words (which is presumably what you meant when you said, inaccurately, "no, it's not at all what you assert"). I did not mean to single out bookmarking as any more of a special case than hyperlinks in general.

As for, "I guess I don't follow your concern," I was not expressing any "concern" per se – only attempting a sanity check. My original post with all its verbosity was a victim of sloppiness; any defensiveness you sense now is the same, and for that I apologize.

I would still appreciate some clarification on whether it would have been appropriate to use the talk page (instead of a comment) for this or similar cases. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: Sorry, I still don't follow. Are you suggesting that I should have posted my concern (about the off-wiki reference in the hidden comment) on the article's talk page, rather than in my edit summary? – voidxor 18:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I was asking about the HTML comment I wrote that started this whole mess, specifically whether I should have mentioned that on the article's talk page instead. What you ultimately did was fine. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: Oh, now I'm with you. I didn't realize that you had written the HTML comment. Like I alluded to earlier (when I was speaking in general terms and wasn't directing my thoughts toward your editing, specifically), I wouldn't have even mentioned a third-party website's linking to an anchor. It's out of our control. While I see that you made the HTML comment in the spirit of MOS:HEAD, this instance (because it's off wiki) is outside the scope of that guideline. – voidxor 19:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

" Redirects do not normally get categorized"

Bullshit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What an articulate argument. Care to cite policy on that? – voidxor 23:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary, it would have been listed under "C" if you hadn't botched what you were trying to accomplish by putting a space in front of the sort key. Care to self revert now? Also, your threat to go to the noticeboard is pretty silly seeing as you have reverted the same number of times, but unlike me, not bothered to explain your reasoning. – voidxor 00:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Categorizing redirects#Alternative names for articles

Sort order: [[...| C...]], per the usual practice on such things. It sorts before [[...|C...]], after [[...| ]]. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's very definitive (specifically "Editors should consider whether alternative names should be mixed in with other names, or not."), but okay. As far as your usual practice, I've never seen sort keys begin with a space, and frankly I don't see the point. Since spaces come before "A" in the sort order, you are grouping it with the spaces, exactly as I had done, but only because of the non-obvious caveat (bug?) that your preceding space was not ignored by the MediaWiki software. Usual practice, in my experience, is to use a space alone as the sort key, which is what I did. – voidxor 23:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I just saw that you refactored my comment. Due to that, plus continually reverting me without explanation, plus threatening me with the noticeboard, plus cussing (above), you are no longer welcome on my talk page. – voidxor 23:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Amusement rides

Are you OK with this? 86.144.117.148 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems immature of them, and a violation of WP:AGF. – voidxor 22:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:78.147.5.140

Re: User talk:78.147.5.140. Not me, guv. You got the wrong person. I didn't make any changes to Glossary of United Kingdom Railway Terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.5.140 (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I left that message for your IP address, not a person. Somebody at your IP address made changes to that article. As I said, "If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices." Thanks. – voidxor 22:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

V set

Hello,

I wish to clarify the meaning of the edit I recently made to the Australian glossary of rail terms. While "V set" is the accurate and official name of the NSW TrainLink V set intercity train fleet, I didn't see why it should be there if other set names (e.g. A/B set for Waratah trains, M set for Millenniums, T set for Tangaras, C sets, K sets, S sets, etc.) Besides, it is only a designation representing a type of train. Those train's common names (e.g. Waratah, Millennium, Tangara, Red Rattler, etc.) I have already added. If those were to be included, so would a lot of other technical terms and that isn't really needed. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Offset printing

Hello Voidxor,

thank you for checking my work. I saw you reverted my changes in "See also" links. Please, consider that the referred "Media Standard Print" is a worldwide applied standard, its download is free of charge (the only one in English language), and it is provided by a non-profit organization. This organization, bvdm, is one of the founding members of the ISO Technical Committee 130 "Graphic Technology" where are developed all standards for offset printing and other printing technologies. There is no reason for your advise "WP:ADVERT". Greetings, Smokeonthewater (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smokeonthewater: Just because the publication's free doesn't mean you're not trying to promote it. The Media Standard Print article reads like an advertisement, and I tagged it as such. And (speaking from 13 years of experience editing Wikipedia) see-also sections in articles about a broad topic (such as offset printing) typically don't link to articles about publications that cover said topic. – voidxor 04:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement for what? There are no financial interests behind. This standard is an intelligible recommendation for a worldwide smooth cooperation in the printing industry resp. between creatives and print service providers. It is a collection and interpretation of ISO standards, tables and figures, target values and tolerances as well as well known tools to measure them. There you can read nothing but facts and hints. It is simply a help for free, not advertisement. The independent and non-profit International Color Consortium based in Reston, VA (USA) appreciates this help and lists the permalink to this standard here: http://www.color.org/info_profiles2.xalter. The logos at page 2 are logos of non-profit organisations, Fogra is an independent research institute. In the German Wikipedia they understand the scope of this article and publication. You mentioned your experience editing Wikipedia? Then please respect the expertise of such articles. By the way, I am here since 2009. And it's not a new problem that Wiki articles are misinterpeted and misvalued. Smokeonthewater (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Further arguments for a better comprehension: There is a fee-based publication "Process Standard Offset" from the same organisation (bvdm). It is a de-facto standard in the European printing industry. But I did not linked it because that would have been advertisement. Instead I linked to the free of charge Media Standard Print. This publication purposes the same objectives like Wikipedia: to provide knowledge for free. Please, reconsider your positions. Smokeonthewater (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smokeonthewater: Again, financial motive is not a prerequisite of advertising. You are clearly using Wikipedia to promote something, even if not for financial gain. In fact, you keep returning to my user page to go on and on about how great it is! Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This is not "[my] position", but rather an established content policy. Each language of Wikipedia has different policies, which is why I referenced my experience on the English Wikipedia. You have only been here since 2012, and only made 41 edits (10% of which have been on my talk page). If you disagree with my interpretation or application of the policy, the correct course of action would be to start a topic on the article's talk page to let other editors weigh in. – voidxor 18:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Media Standard Print (English version) is in worldwide use since 2006, without any promotion in Wikipedia. The 2016 and 2018 editions were the reason to write resp. update the Wiki article. Of course, that may be seen as promotion. But is the worldwide use not a criterium to mirror it in Wikipedia? Smokeonthewater (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smokeonthewater: You keep missing my points (choosing instead to focus on why this subject deserves coverage). Firstly, the Media Standard Print article reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. It sounds like you are trying to promote something (regardless of financial motives). Secondly, it is a minor subject compared to the much more broad topic of offset printing. It is so minor in comparison, I don't believe it deserves mention in the See Also section. That would be like Computer linking to PC Magazine in the See Also section. – voidxor 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

I had no intention of being rude or insulting. Sometimes I let the fundamental absurdity of this project get to me and forget myself. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski: Apology accepted, but do keep in mind that the only way we can combat Wikipedia's poor reputation is to better enforce the long-standing verifiability policy. Those of us who tag articles and "lay down the law", if you will, are not the enemy. – voidxor 23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice catch!

Hi there! Nice work! One thing I get totally flustered by is the inline citations or references. When I look at the code people use for that, I give up. If you have any time to spare, if you could consider converting the external hyperlinks in that article to references? It is tagged as having no external sources because I struggle to use references. I also see your point concerning the revert of the link to the fire barrier page on the NERC page. Another good catch on your part. One item, which I thought I would ask your advice about: When referring to public domain standards, such as those of ASTM, UL, ULC, NFPA, there is a limit to how much one can put inside an article without violating copyright. So I paraphrase in order to make my points without causing a problem. I sit on a bunch of those committees as well. But then people tag content saying it is unreferenced, which is not true. But to find out one would have to either be on the committee, where one gets the standard for free, or a UL customer, where one gets those standards for free, even without being a member of one of their STP committees, or buy the standard. But is that considered too much trouble as a reference? Is it the expectation that the only acceptable reference is one where the content can be had for free with zero effort? Mind you, nothing prevents anybody from joining such committees, and then they would get that for free. But it takes EFFORT. I got criticised here by someone who clearly did not trouble himself to even look anything up and cannot answer the simplest question on the topic but just tagged, too detailed and unreferenced, but was unwilling to expend the remotest effort to check into the matter. I figure that if it is a public domain standard, ANYBODY can look it up. It does not take secret society membership or superior breeding. In fact, membership is typically encouraged. I would love to see some more members of the general public take an interest and join ASTM and take part in meetings, rather than just special interest groups. Not every scrap of information out there is free by mouseclick… Maybe it's a Millennial thing, I don't know. What do you think? Best regards,--Achim Hering (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim Hering: Thank you for the kind words! Yes, the syntax for citations is a bit daunting at first. Until you get comfortable with it, I would recommend using the RefToolbar, which is an easy way to format references automatically using the toolbar at the top of the edit window.

Copyright laws are complicated. Most industry standards (ASTM, UL, NFPA, etc.) do have copyrights, though. You cannot copy copyrighted text to Wikipedia verbatim, but you can paraphrase as much as you like. Just remember to cite your sources.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. So even if a standards committee reference a primary source, we (as a tertiary source) need to reference the standard (as a secondary source). That's why other editors are tagging the article as needing citations; you need to cite sources as you write content on Wikipedia. You can't just go off what's in your head because that's not verifiable.

Yes, you can reference standards and books that cost money. There is no expectation that the source be free.

I agree that the article is poorly cited and far too detailed for a high-level encyclopedia, based on the linked Wikipedia policies. There is no rule about needing to be an expert on a subject in order to edit or tag an article. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and we are expected to work together to improve it. I think your best bet it to spend some time adding as many citations as you can. Ideally, every sentence should have a citation. – voidxor 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks bro. I see your point. However, in this regard, I believe that one should actually have read the referenced documents before tagging. If you haven't read that, and have zero experience in the realm, then the only way out is to call it a name and cite Wikipedia regulations. and for that, there is support in spades around here. But I do appreciate your input and will endeavour to figure out the inline citations. Best regards, --Achim Hering (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know how to do re-directs? I would like to fix it so that searches for "transformer firewalls", "transformer fire wall", "transformer ballistic firewalls", transformer ballistic fire wall" and "transformer blast walls" default to this page. I'm up to 24 inline citations by now... --Achim Hering (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We're up to 35 inline citations. Is the Pope now Catholic enough for the reference tag to go?--Achim Hering (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim Hering: Unfortunately, no. Like I said, ideally every sentence should be cited (not that we have to achieve such perfection in order remove the {{More citations needed}} tag). Keep up the good referencing work, but don't forget that the article is also overly detailed. I would remove some of the details, thereby trimming the article to a high-level overview of the topic. Doing that will reduce the amount of referencing work that lay ahead.

See this guide to creating redirects. – voidxor 23:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Please bear in mind that there are reasons for this level of detail. If you immersed yourself in the topic, you would see those.--Achim Hering (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim Hering: Please lose the holier-than-thou attitude. I have a master's degree in electrical engineering and work as a substation reliability engineer for an electric utility (not that it matters; there's no requirement to be a subject-matter expert to edit a given article). Myself and other experienced editors keep providing you with constructive criticism (such as the importance of citing), but you keep rejecting much of what we're unanimously telling you. Until now, I have been patiently trying to help you with the nuances of the English Wikipedia. Perhaps try listening instead of acting like you own the article. – voidxor 03:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Voidxor, good luck, this guy has a looong history of believing he does not have to pay attention to WP goals because be believes he is an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.182.229 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you buy a transformer fire barrier that was not UL or Intertek listed for that purpose? Ever witness an E119 test? Ever witness any ballistics or fragmentation tests? Forget about Wikipedia for a minute.--Achim Hering (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Voidxor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of online brokerages in the United States

The article Comparison of online brokerages in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Delete Wikipedia is not a price-comparison site.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: Having created that page years before seeing that particular policy, I have no objection. – voidxor 04:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Railways listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Railways. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:Railways redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sirius Satellite Radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Ellis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I had fixed somebody else's broken link syntax. Fixed nonetheless. Thank you. – voidxor 21:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Laser harp page

Please can you tell me more about which advertising I've made on the page please. Gene6 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. – voidxor 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to Wiknic Midwest 2020!

Hi Voidxor! Thanks for attending the Wiknic Midwest breakout session today! I hope you enjoyed it, and if you're interested in continuing to chat with others about local Wikimedia organizing across the US, look no farther than Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States (WALRUS). WALRUS has calls twice a month – to get the invitations, shoot a message to Pharos. And, of course, always feel free to leave me a note if I can be any help. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You broke the wiki

This edit caused the page to exceed one of Wikipedia's technical limits. See WP:PEIS. As a result, templates near the bottom of the page are not showing up.

The fix is either to split User:UBX/Userboxes/Books, change it to not use {{yy}}, or to rewrite the yy template so it doesn't impact this limit as much. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have copied this content-related discussion to the project talk page, where it belongs, and replied there. – voidxor 00:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Hello, Voidxor,

Please do not add any nonexistent, red link categories to article or user pages. They just show up as errors. See WP:REDNOT. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: To what on Earth are you referring? Please always link one or more diffs when lecturing people. I can assure you that I'm aware of that particular guideline and would not have deliberately violated it. – voidxor 18:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I found [10] and [11]. In both cases, the curly arrows to the left of the diff lines in question clearly show that I moved the category links to the bottom of the page and removed the errant <includeonly> tags. Those two users (or more likely, one editor copied the other's user page) had added those userboxes by substitution or by copy and paste. Either way, userbox code often needs to be a little different when subst'ed versus transcluded; the <includeonly> tags are an example of that. I fix userboxes all of the time, usually in a semiautomated way in AutoWikiBrowser. I have fixed thousands of these, and two fixed non-working cats that were already present. Sorry about that, and thank you for fixing those two. However, I am not going to take the time to inspect for broken category links on every page that I edit, and it would be ridiculous to expect me to (not implying that you are...just in general).

In my 15 years of editing, I have seen many examples of edits that rightfully fix one issue, but inadvertently make another preexisting issue (often to do with bad syntax or grammar) more readily apparent. – voidxor 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-transclusion of deleted templates

Thanks for cleanup edits like this one. One request: When you do these edits, please do not "fix" broken templates that do not exist by restoring braces that other editors have deliberately deleted. In the case of that edit, it reinstated a transclusion of {{user Raspberry}}, which does not exist. That action causes the transclusion to pop up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates, and then someone else needs to tidy it up. Thanks, and let me know if you have questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: You make a similar complaint to Liz above. Granted, you are much nicer about it. I looked into that particular edit, and will basically reiterate my answer to her: No, I most definitely will not do as you request. While your request is obviously well intended, it is also just as irrational as Liz's above. I manually fixed a couple mismatched brackets (AWB flags those) while semi-automatically fixing broken userbox transclusions—the very same thing that you are enthusiastic about fixing.

I see and manually fix mismatched brackets, tags, and parenthesis all of the time; user pages often have sloppy noob syntax. Once in a blue moon, fixing a user's typo (and yes, it was a typo, not a bot-disabled template like User:SporkBot tends to do using {{Tl}} etc.) causes secondary issues like you and Liz describe.

I am sorry that I increased your workload by one edit (possibly a few more), but it is completely unreasonable to expect me to slow down and patrol for what you like to patrol for while patrolling for what I am out to fix. The fact of the matter is that my AWB editing is in wikicode view (obviously), and 99% of the time I do not need to view a rendered preview of the page. As I told Liz, all links are black in wikicode view.

Also, I love the irony of you asking me not to cause broken userbox transclusions when I have fixed tens of thousands of them in the last year and a half (a little pandemic pet project of mine).

Anyway, let's please just move forward with the understanding that if I cause a secondary problem while fixing a primary problem, and you see or are patrolling for that particular issue, then please just fix it with my implied blanket apology. It'll happen occasionally. – voidxor 03:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I am sure that I make mistakes that cause work for other editors as well, but when I am notified of my errors, I attempt to modify my editing processes and tools to avoid making those same errors in the future. I will continue to hope that you will follow the clear guideline at WP:REDNOT. If you can't preview your edits properly with the tool you are using, perhaps a second tool is necessary, since editors are responsible for their edits. You can look at the page after you save it, or you can click Edit and look at the "Templates used in this section" to see if you have introduced red links to templates in contravention of guidelines. If you do not want to leave unbalanced braces, which I understand, I suggest adding tl| to the nonexistent template transclusions to turn them into links instead of transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you clearly don't get it. Maybe go back and read my replies to Liz and you a couple of times over is all I can suggest. Idiotic fellow gnomes. You are beating me up for something that I cannot see without going well out of my way. Basically, you are asking me to check on something over yonder every time I am in another place working on another thing. Do your same ridiculous expectations carry over into article space as well? Should mine? Like, if a new editor makes a good-faith attempt to address a major issue in an article (cleanup needed, lack of references, what have you...) can I go to their user talk page and repeatedly beat them over the head with violating some obscure MOS guideline with a fancy-schmancy shortcut (like MOS:ANDOR, for instance, or WP:SPS)? If they replace htttp:// with http://, can I smack them with WP:ELDEAD? I mean, they're clearly worthless new editors if they can't be bothered to check the status of web pages before fixing obvious typos in their URLs. They should be run off the wiki for their incompetence. How dare anybody try to improve any article without getting it 100% right the first time?!

Also, where have you been for the last 14 years? As I pointed out, I've been furiously fixing userbox transclusions for the last year and a half. Most have been broken since the userbox migration, circa 2007. You haven't done anything about them, have you? Now, here I am taking on a huge project to fix them (per WP:REDNOT, idiot)—something that you haven't bothered to do. All you can do is go to your precious Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates—which is clearly sorted to show the newest broken transclusions first—and beat people over the head with it even if they are playing for the same team.

You are no longer welcome on my talk page, seeing as you are too hard headed to read what I am trying to convey about my reasoning. If you further harass me about this particular issue here or elsewhere, I will gladly take it to ANI. We will see that they have to say about me simply fixing unmatched brackets when I see them. – voidxor 04:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: G. Lawrence Blankinship Sr. (January 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eyebeller was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:G. Lawrence Blankinship Sr. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:G. Lawrence Blankinship Sr., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eyebeller 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Voidxor! Having an article 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! Eyebeller 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: G. Lawrence Blankinship Sr. has been accepted

G. Lawrence Blankinship Sr., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edison Tech Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seagate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. – voidxor 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Kosmos 1408 and ELINT

I'm not sure I understand this edit. At [12], which is referenced in the 'Purpose and launch' section of the article, it's said clearly that it's "ELINT (Electronic and Signals Intelligence)". The problem seems to be that ELINT redirects to Signals intelligence, and someone decided to helpfully bypass the redirect? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm moving this content discussion to the article's talk page so that others may weigh in as well. – voidxor 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Rm "Inc." per MOS:TMRULES

Hi, what follows is a request for a point of clarification rather than any issue on the edit. I followed up the link to MOS:TMRULES after you deleted the Inc. at the end of Penton Media Inc. to see where I had transgressed but couldn't find anything to support removal in that page. There was something on on WP:NCCORP but that only applies to page titles and first lines. Have I missed something? Feedback would be useful. Skullcinema (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Skullcinema: I assume you're referring to this edit of mine at Scroll compressor. We typically omit the "Inc.", "Ltd.", or "LLC" part of company names when casually mentioning the company, simply because it's not needed. The exception to that is when the legal name of the company is contextually needed to discuss the founding, mergers, acquisitions, etc. I've been applying that standard for years with the same edit summary. The problem that I sometimes run into is that the policies I'm linking to continue to evolve over time, and sometimes lose their pointiness on such style matters.

You're right that WP:NCCORP is a naming convention for articles. Let me do a little research and get back to you. – voidxor 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I feel confident that corporate statuses are typically omitted in editing practice, I think I'm going to stop citing MOS:TMRULES in my edit summaries. It's just not as pointy on that particular issue as I thought it was. Reading between the lines of TMRULES and NCCORP, however, it's still clear that most editors don't append those suffixes, as none appear in the examples. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! – voidxor 17:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and apologies for my oversight in not linking to the edit I was talking about. Like most new(ish) editors I haven't (and likely won't) read the Style Guide from top to bottom before I started editing. So when someone points out that I'm not following WP best practice I try to follow up so that A) I don't repeat the same mistake and B) other editors don't get annoyed by my ingenuous edits.

For interest I searched WP for "Penton Media" and Penton Media Inc" and about 1/3 of the total included the Inc. (113/324). So, while admittedly being in the minority, it appears that I am not that isolated in using the legal name of the company. The legal status isn't something I would usually use in open text but for references I would normally keep to whatever the source states. In this way I don't have to consider which format is more readable/more commonly used/distinguishes the company from others with the same name, just transcribe the information as presented.

Again thanks for the clarification. Skullcinema (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion of my edit to "Kosmos 1408"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article "Kosmos 1408" with the comment "This looks like a compound modifier to me." If you look at the line following the edited one, you will see that "Kessler syndrome" is also a compound, not just "syndrome-inciting". As such, MOS:SUFFIXDASH applies, so my changing of the hyphen to an en dash was correct. May I please redo my edit? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Certainly. Thanks for explaining a grammatical nuance of which I was unaware. – voidxor 21:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ^_^, and you're welcome. I've gone ahead and made the change. You may also find these helpful (more peculiarities of punctuation on Wikipedia):

• MOS:CITEPUNCT
• MOS:CURLY
• MOS:DASH (note that em dashes versus spaced en dashes can be a touchy subject)
• MOS:QUOTE
• MOS:RANGE

—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Check my edit history; I'm often the one applying those. – voidxor 16:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UBX-strawberrybanana-yogurt

Template:UBX-strawberrybanana-yogurt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UBX-mango-yogurt

Template:UBX-mango-yogurt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UserboxBoeingFan

Template:UserboxBoeingFan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UserboxAirbusFan

Template:UserboxAirbusFan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Userbox/USTP

Template:Userbox/USTP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)