Jump to content

User talk:TechnoSquirrel69

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.89.159.222 (talk) at 23:11, 6 April 2024 (→‎Blocked a anyonomous user for 6 months). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The article Mirror (Porter Robinson song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mirror (Porter Robinson song) and Talk:Mirror (Porter Robinson song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Skyshifter -- Skyshifter (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mirror (Porter Robinson song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mirror (Porter Robinson song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Mirror (Porter Robinson song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Skyshifter -- Skyshifter (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Odd Atelier (March 27)

@BuySomeApples: I think I made a mistake and listed myself as the submitter for this draft instead of Zénith116, the author. Just pinging to let you know I've moved the notification over to the right talk page! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that! BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

I realize you were trying to help but the instructions clearly state Please do not use the editor's name in the section heading, link to the editor's user page, or otherwise ping the editor. There was an open thread titled Nomination that was available for the novice editor to use. Again. No blame intended. Just a heads up. I will let the other editor know as well. Thanks for participating at Editor of the Week. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll keep that in mind. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest Hindu deity statues

Hi TechnoSquirrel69, I've added two links to this article and you have deleted the same stating that they are not reliable. Both the links were dead links and hence I updated the same with these links which provide the latest information related to that two different statues based on research using Google. Can you kindly review these links again as I sincerely believe that they adhere to the guidelines of Wikipedia and these articles are not trying to do any promotion or advertising, but stating the historical & cultural significance of those two different statues. Request you to kindly approve the same when convenient. Or kindly advise on steps to making these links to be considered reliable. Thanks a lot for your contributions to Wikipedia and thanks a lot for your valuable time. 5fighters (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 5fighters, thanks for your message. I removed the links you added as the source seems to be unreliable — Wikipedia generally does not accept blogs as references as they are self-published. Also, as I mentioned on your talk page earlier, you appear to have a conflict of interest with the 14cosmicsecrets.com website. I appreciate that you've decided to stop using alternate accounts to make edits, but you should probably avoid inserting links to the website as well, as that may have the appearance to other editors that you're attempting to use Wikipedia to bring additional exposure to the website. That being said, I have not restored the links in the List of tallest Hindu deity statues article. If you're genuinely interested in contributing information to the article, I would recommend scouting for sources that are secondary, independent, and reliably published — something like a book from a historian or a paper in a reputable journal. Let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Regarding the C# article

Hi there.

It's a matter of truth. In other fields, you might need a supporting source. In mathematics and computer science, everybody can check the truth for him-/herself. There's no need for support, I think. It'd take me at least the same time to look up supporting quotes as it took me to write down the facts everybody knowledgable about the subject already knows. Documentation stored at Microsoft.com, probably. The things I wrote weren't speculative assertions. Do you think the things I wrote might be misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.164.208 (talkcontribs) 00:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your message. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability that all articles have to follow, even those about math and computer science. I disagree that the content you added is something that "everybody can check"; these fields can sometimes require specialized knowledge to understand, and not everyone has that background. One of the purposes of Wikipedia — as an encyclopedia — is to provide an accessible overview of subjects to a layperson. With that in mind, I'd recommend that you check for reliable sources that support the statements before re-adding them. Let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to research the sources, but I'm struggling with the exact "cite web" syntax. Any suggestions where to read more about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.164.208 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Referencing for beginners is a good place to start, and it covers the basic tools that help you with formatting citation templates. The template documentation has a much more complete list of parameters if you need that. Let me know if you need help with anything specific! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again -- was unable do any attempts before this weekend. Please check the first re-introduced change regarding whether I got the citing methods right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.193.164 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation looks good — thanks for making that contribution! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69, can you explain what further rationale you would like, other than the contribution I made to the edit log. The sentence I removed had nothing to do with that component of the page, so I wrote the following: 00:27, 2 April 2024Noetel talk contribs‎  60,324 bytes −831‎  Removed a sentence from the organisational culture section that did not reflect organisational culture.

This seems in line with the guide you pointed to: Help:Edit summary Please indicate where my edit summary doesn't reflect the guide.

Noetel (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Noetel, thanks for your message. I reverted your edit as while you did leave an explanation, I didn't see that as a sufficient reason for the removal. Since the content is supported by multiple sources, it might be more better to move it to a more appropriate section or simply rephrase the content. Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page if you still believe it should be removed. Let me know if you have any other questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IM A CHILD

I DONT KNOW WHAT IM DOING IM SORRY 73.62.175.221 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i dont know how to talk so im editing you can delete this once you see it but my 7 year old brother just discovered how to edit and he decided to do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:43F0:4B70:B586:D4EE:DDE3:981A (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 new principals in Bangladeshi Medical Colleges

https://mefwd.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/mefwd.portal.gov.bd/go_ultimate/27538854_d577_4d9a_b428_aa8bd816c6e8/Principal%20GO.pdf Farhadrahman210 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Farhadrahman210: What's the context behind this link? TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, The government of Peooles republic of Bangladesh ordered a press release for 9 newly appointed principal of Medical Colleges,
So I made some changes in wikipedia with reference and you removed them Farhadrahman210 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I reverted your edits due to the lack of sources — thanks for including a reference this time! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello TechnoSquirrel69,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked a anyonomous user for 6 months

Just blocked 64.56.14.75 for 6 months because of disrupting editing he did. Exteahans71 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exteahans71: Neither one of us have the technical ability to block users, which is a tool reserved for administrators. Either way, this message does not look good for you while your conduct is being discussed at ANI. Please stop your disruptive editing, or you risk being blocked yourself. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kansas City shooting

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kansas City shooting. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 24.89.159.222 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]