Jump to content

User talk:Technopat/Archive 11 (to 26 June 2023)

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

Thank you for visiting "my" talk page.
Please leave your message at the bottom of this page, either by clicking "New section" (above) or "Click here..." (below).
I'll reply wherever you prefer (my usual habit is to reply on your talk page, which means I'm watching it, and there's no need to add the {{talkback}} template or quote any previous message).

Oh yeah, before I forget, if you came here because I undid or reverted your unsourced content, there's really no point bringing it up here. Just cite your references in the article you edited.
Click here to leave me a new message, and please don't forget to sign.

Thank

[edit]

Hi Technopat

Thanks for your help.and your words.

About you talking to me, i just did translate from the spanish text to english, so if the spanish text was correct and functionaly thereford the english. Just asking.

In other hand, I was attemp to introduce the same references that was in Spanish article, but i wasnt able to do. I must study harder how works the list references in English edition because works in different way then in Spanish edition.

Thanks for your help and I apologice for my english expression. Prodestur (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forget to sign
Prodestur (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

[edit]

To Technopat,

Hello! I was wondering why you removed my edits on the Feynman page.

Kind Regards,

Feynkid Feynkid (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joaquín Ibáñez, Baron de Eroles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Castile. 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) 06:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

[edit]

Hi Technopat! I think you got the wrong user, because the IP address you reverted the edits to was 204.122.112.163, and I am 190.26.144.107. Otherwise, my edits are just proof, because Wikipedia:Sandbox is a sandbox, my edits are not intended to misinform or vandalism. Thanks. 190.26.144.107 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just for general information, this IP has done this on more than one occasion. --Technopat (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exact. The same person who used the IP to make that edit wrote you the message. The sandbox page, not even in Help:My sandbox mentions that it's just for "general comsumption", for that it would have to be an article or something strictly formal.
    What I did in the sandbox is not vandalism or misinformation, it's just proofs. Why? Because it is precisely a sandbox, where the editions do not necessarily contribute to Wikipedia. What was done is not promotional, protected by copyright, offensive or libelous, it is simply an experiment of what a chart on Wikipedia would be, but it does not have encyclopedic or malicious intentions. I hope you understand which edition you are messing with.
    Additionally, you say that I am supposedly doing "vandalism". It's not the first time I've done it, since that kind of thing I do in the right place almost periodically. So why before users like you didn't stop me but you did? Explain to me what happens with you and what is that general consumption that you tell me. 190.26.144.107 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment. --Technopat (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of Military terms

[edit]

WP:MILTERMS is not intended to override MOS:CAPS on things like battle and siege. When sources don't support capitalization, we don't either. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French toast

[edit]

You reverted my note that citations in the article on French toast failed verification, with the comment 'That "earliest known reference" is verifiable, which is what matters.'

This doesn't make sense; I'm aware that the reference is verifiable. That's why it was marked "failed verification" - the citation is verifiable, the attempt was made, and the citation is known to be false. The Apicius does not contain the text attributed to it by the article. The article is quoting material that is original to a 1936 translation of the Apicius, and it is marked as original content [not present in the Latin] in that English-language work.

Given that, why do we want to have false information in the French toast article? 2601:647:CC00:84D0:9A0:20F:1FA5:2DC9 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replied. --Technopat (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on how you think WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant?
    The French toast article makes two claims about the Apicius, both cited to the same source. The claims are "verifiable" in that they are cited to a work that really exists and it's possible to check whether that source supports those claims. They have "failed verification" in that the source doesn't support the claims. It is true that the claims are false, but more importantly here, the claims are also not present in the source to which they are cited. 2601:647:CC00:84D0:20E7:5F80:7E14:3028 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute of resolution

[edit]

I opened a Dispute of resolution here Xuxo (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of French generals of the Peninsular War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Valencia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

…for your reverts on IP 220.240.82.127’s unconstructive talk page edits, which I only saw after I replied to them on a new one. I am not totally sure what’s going on there but thought I’d flag to you that they’re back at it, in case you have a better sense of the background than I do. Thank you for your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Peninsular War

[edit]

You split Timeline of the Peninsular War when it was 70 kB. The two lists are now 84 kB in total. Lists are often far longer. Special:LongPages has hundreds of lists above 300 kB. The table was sortable but now it's only sortable within the interval on the same page, and closely connected information is spread on two pages. Was the split discussed somewhere? Are you planning a huge expansion of the content? I suggest undoing the split and adding a year index and year rows like List of aircraft carrier operations during World War II#List of named operations involving aircraft carriers. I think that's better for readers, and 84 kB or even 200 kB isn't that much to handle for editors. Are you using a device where it's a problem? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made code to allow more wrapping so the columns before "Notes" can be significantly narrower now than before I removed <small>...</small>. A more drastic solution would be moving the "Notes" cell to its own row like we do for plots in tv episode lists like Game of Thrones (season 1)#Episodes. But I don't support that for timelines. All of List of aircraft carrier operations during World War II#List of named operations involving aircraft carriers is sortable as a whole. That's the system I suggest, without the empty rows in that table, and with code to place the year rows at the bottom when any column is sorted. Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline is about readable prose size. The lead says "Readable prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections." The cells in the notes column do have text in the form of readable prose so it's debatable how to count it. Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline says: "When considering to split list articles, consider the impact of breaking up a sortable table". See also WP:SPLITLIST. 100 kB or more is usually not considered a problem for lists. By "undoing the split" I mean to merge the two current timelines including all changes after the split, and with an edit summary linking the other timeline (which would become a redirect with page history) for attribution. I edit with a pc where it's easy to handle large pages. Do you use a mobile device? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have performed the merger. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

[edit]

You didn't go to the other person's page and saw that there was another message in the convo...

1. In that message I agree to take out of the edition what he requested (Spain page edit), and so I added it again, and the editor didn't undo it anymore. So unless the editor says otherwise, we ended in agreement and the edit was ok...

2. The original timestamp is the one on his page. I don't know why, but the reply on my page wasn't posted for some reason. I added it after you mentioned a previous reply of his, and I thought it was a little weird since there was an additional reply on my part which settled the issue. Then I found out it wasn't posted, I posted it, and just added the correct timestamp to my page. You can check it's true here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asqueladd (21:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

3. Your warnings were out of line because what you thought was happening wasn't happening. I mostly blame Wikipedia's bizzare messaging system, because boy, wouldn't it be easier with regular DMs, replying directly to edits, or a voting system on edits so it's not an all or nothing system like now. Just rambling, but it kinda sucks that a good faith edit can get auto-rejected with zero reasons, and even if there is a reason, I go solve the issue with the person and the edit gets rejected anyway because a misunderstanding... I hope it's cleared up now Kidiawipekidiawipe (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? ... LOL

[edit]

Looks like I'm not the first. Not surprized. What exactly is an "Asturian?" As an AUSTRIAN, I'm offended. Bordova (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of nanotechnology

[edit]

why did you remove the version that i uploaded it since it has good reference David dclork li (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk deletion

[edit]

I noticed you removed a message posted by User:Jeffshusband on User talk:SoWhy -- what was the reason for that? I didn't see anything wrong with it. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 18:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are the One that is Vandalizing and Policing bodies 🙅❌

[edit]

Hello,

You keep undoing my updates and edits on the "body hair" page.

Why are you so obsessed? And what gives you the right to use the word "Vandalizing" when it comes to simply editing text to make it more accessible and adding images which correspond to each section of the page?

Let people breathe and stop over-policing: it's all fun and games until you are the one who gets reported for "Distruptive" behaviour!


XOXO

Sugarcubexoxo Sugarcubexoxo (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juan Carlos de Aréizaga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Belchite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

[edit]

Hi! Should I remove this from a sandbox (also known as the sandbox heading):

{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}

<!--

* Welcome to the sandbox! *

* Please leave this part alone *

* The page is cleared regularly *

* Feel free to try your editing skills below *

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■-->

? Thanks! MihaiBlock (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:BADSAND. While a bot will eventually add it back, its best if you don't remove it as new users going to use the sandbox might not think its a sandbox since the template is missing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MihaiBlock: what Blaze Wolf said. There's no good reason to remove it, and bots are going to re-add it anyway. If for some reason, and I can't imagine why, your experiment will not work with it there just use your personnal sandbox. In fact unless your experimenting with specialized namespaces (e.g. category, template, or module) you're probably best conducting all of your experiments there anyway.
Experimenting in sandboxes is fine, but at some point you need to use the knowledge you gain to contribute constructively in mainspace. You may want to consider assisting at rowikibooks or rowikiversity, or perhaps simple English Wikipedia which avoids more complex vocabulary and sentence structures.
You are welcome to continue contributing here for now if you're confident in your ability to do so, but be advised that good intentions are not a license for disruption.
In the future please consider directing all of your inquiries to the WP:TEAHOUSE, thank you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be editing anywhere given their history. I admire your good faith 74. and BlazeWolf, but it's wasted in this case.-- Ponyobons mots 20:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is what it is. For every 100 personal messages I write up, only one will reach a good-faith contributor who sticks around, but I try to write them anyway. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it though letting them try to get rid of the header might itself be proper comeuppance; bots don't usually lose edit wars. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly didn't even know they had a blocked account here. I knew they had blocked socks on soWiki but not here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roedean school

[edit]

Hi, Roedean school isn’t on the outskirts of Brighton, there are 3 other villages in the city beyond Roedean. It is on the outskirts of the city though. Greenfrog23 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) @Greenfrog23: You were changing content around without adding any sources or explaining why. Please review Help:Edit summary, and ensure that you support any changes with a citation to a reliable source, or if the change is already supported by an existing source you should note that in your edit summary when making the change. You may also find it beneficial to learn more about editing by inquiring at the teahouse, thank you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, I will try to learn more about editing. Greenfrog23 (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re: 148.252.141.75

[edit]

Hi. That IP User has been blocked for a week and the sockpuppet 2economist2 has been indeffed. Please see Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/148.252.141.75 Have a good day and regards.   Aloha27  talk  18:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physical therapy subsection deletion

[edit]

Hi,

We attempted to delete the Physical therapy subsection of the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome page for reasons explained on the Talk page. We would like some more clarification on your reversion. Are you against the entire deletion of the subsection, or do you think the way we went about deleting the subsection was wrong? Thank you for your help! Mitrakardes (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

[edit]

Please fix the citation that you un-fixed.

Also, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) says to prefer sources that are up to date, so if you see an editor who seems to be familiar with the subject and they're removing sourced medical information cited to anything more ~10 years old, it's often a good idea to let them do that. Some things don't change, but other things do (e.g., the desirability of surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome).

You can ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine if you think someone is removing factually correct, up-to-date information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institución Libre de Enseñanza review

[edit]

Hi Technopat, I have made a complete restyling of the article "Institución Libre de Enseñanza" with improvements in the writing, references, structure, links, new information, etc. I suggest you go back to review it and if you think it's ok to remove the maintenance template. Thanks RafiUbeda (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of an edit

[edit]

Hi there, you removed an edit of Leopard tanks in Ukraine stating that 4 of the 30 active have been destroyed by Russian forces. That fact is not disputed by western MSM and videos of the destruction of the tanks is readily available online. In the interests of accurate information on this site, claiming 30 are "active" when clearly 4 are no longer seems like a clear falsehood which could be viewed as bias against Russia which I hope is not the case as I have always considered Wiki to be unbiased... is that no longer the case? 121.75.198.166 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion of my page

[edit]

Sir, can you explain why you reverted my page? I worked really hard on it. :( Contributor 118,784 (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TOPIC CLOSED, RESOLVED! Contributor 118,784 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

inline citations template on the VIT-AP University page

[edit]

Hey, so u added inline citations template on the VIT-AP University page, can you please tell me which citations needs improvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone Apex (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the Wikipedia Café

[edit]

Rules are no closing it, Only the owner can and I’m the owner of the business Jdjmsrubbsbjjw (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of After Dark (Dick Morrissey album) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article After Dark (Dick Morrissey album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Dark (Dick Morrissey album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TheSandDoctor Talk 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[edit]

Hello, Technopat,

Thanks for cleaning up the sandbox but I just needed a page to list some categories for about 10 minutes while I tagged them. I was going to rollback my edit when I was finished but you beat me to it. In the future, I should probably just create a new sandbox in my User space to take care of these tasks. Sorry for any confusion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IESE review

[edit]

Hi Technopat,

I have made a complete revision of "IESE Business School", the text and its sources, removing information without references or changing the references to independent ones. I have also deleted listings of chairs and research centers. It requires modifying the reference template to create one with 2 or 4 columns, but I don't know how to do it. I suggest you revisit it and if you are ok with it, delete the maintenance template. Thanks again RafiUbeda (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Heughan

[edit]

Can you please stop undoing my constructive edits to Sam Heughan. If a gap can be filled it should be and I happen to know a lot more about the subject than you. If you continue to vandalise other people’s work you will be blocked. 31.51.170.82 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please clean up after yourself

[edit]

following your raiding of the Requeté piece. --Dd1495 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I was at somewhat of a loss on reading your rude note above. My instinct told to me ignore it as mere, petty vandalism, of the "poo", "fart", "bum" and "wee-wee"-type that we are unfortunately so accustomed to and respond, accordingly, with a mere “No comment”. But then curiosity got the better of me and I went over my recent edition to see if I had slipped up somewhere...
Yes! I had indeed... I had, inadvertently, removed a "<" from a reference tag! However, true to form, and despite having made two edits since then, and left your note above, you chose to leave that horrendous error, mistake or blunder of mine in there, rather than simply and discreetly fixing it yourself, which is what most, indeed I dare say the vast majority of other editors in this collaborative project would have done. If you had opted to fix it yourself and then decided to leave me a note to inform me of my crass error, mistake or blunder I would have been grateful and would have expressed my gratitude accordingly.
Now needing to satisfy my curiosity, "curiouser and curiouser" sums it up, I went further back into the history of that article and saw that I had done some very minor copy-editing there way back in December of last year. My only apparent sin on that occasion had been to do some minor copy-editing and to place a discreet maintenance template, by no means, to use your term, a "stigmatizing tag", unless, of course, you hold the article in such reverence that you consider any tag to be blasphemous, in which case, noblesse oblige, I should apologise for offending your feelings.
In response to your edit summary on that occasion, which I hadn’t seen until just now, and in which you kindly request me to "provide extensive rationale with examples and elaboration on the talk page" (we're dealing with a simple copy-edit tag... how can I possibly expound on a rationale for that?), all I can say is that, if you had any experience of copy-editing, you know it would probably take longer to point out all the necessary corrections than it would to actually correct them all myself. But neither are gonna happen. It's all yours! (Just for the information of other people bothering to read this, among several other issues, the article currently has hundreds, literally hundreds, of footnotes comprising paragraphs/sentences beginning with lowercase letters. To say nothing of the weird syntax and...) However, lest I get pulled up for edit-warring, I ain't gonna restore that "stigmatizing tag" nor, having already fixed my unforgivable goof, bother to return to that page to help out... There's plenty of stuff out there that needs fixing.
BTW, as an experienced user of Wikipedia, you should know by now that maintenance tags shouldn't be removed without first solving the problem indicated. You, however, apparently the proud owner of an article on Wikipedia, simply removed that "stigmatizing" tag, without solving any of the evident problems. Way to go, kiddo!
Oh! And please do not bother to respond to this note. I have no wish to interact with a fellow Wikipedia who leaves visiting cards like yours. Technopat (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reason(s) for Revert(s)?

[edit]

Hello, Technopat, I see that you have recently reverted various edits of mine, which I am fine with, provided you give proper reasons.

As a Wikipedian who has 35 times less contributions than you do, I don't think I have rights to revert the edits of a lot-more-experienced editors. I just want to know the reasons.

Regards, I'm Here to Help You (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Hello, Technopat!

You have patiently cleared many of my doubts, for which I am grateful, and I award you this lovely barnstar.

Cheers! I'm Here to Help You (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technopat/Archive_11_(to_26_June_2023)&oldid=1162037398"