User talk:Electricmemory

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

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Electricmemory: (Over a year later) - He was talking about me, I guess. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I know it's a year later and it's redundant to continue the discussion but I'm gonna go ahead anyway. AVA Navigate was talking about this edit. When I reverted it using a tool, it says the name of the user whose edit I just reverted and the editor's name of the revision being stored.

Editor's username being restored: AVA Navigate

Editor's username I've reverted: Electricmemory

He saw your name in my edit, thinking I was talking about him, and just came here. That's at least what I think happened. Sorry for the late and redundant reply. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my statement on why I responded.

I saw “AVA Navigate: Per WP:NOTBROKENand non-constructive edit. (UV 0.1.6)” in the history, and accidentally misread it as if it was regarding me, but instead it was a restore to my previous edit, which I noticed when I went back since Electricmemory wasn’t sure what I was saying.

(If I remember correctly, it was over a year ago so kinda hard to recall everything that happened.) AVA Navigate (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ZLEA _T\^C 10:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Why was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash closed as keep only three days after it was relisted? Although WP:RELIST says that A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days, no new arguments were cast after the relist and I don't see a consensus in P&G arguments that the article should have been kept. Could you reopen the discussion to allow for (potentially) more discussion? Thank you. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Came here to ask the same question. This should NOT have been closed. It also does NOT appear that a consensus to keep was reached...if anything, the consensus was aiming to redirect, as the vast majority of keep arguments were not policy based. nf utvol (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree entirely: Keep arguments can be summed up as WP:BIG, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ITSNOTABLE, but nothing that is actually a valid WP:PG-based rationale. Reopening would be the best course of action I think, largely preferable to WP:DRV. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• I reopened and relisted the AfD in my individual capacity as an uninvolved admin, per WP:REOPEN. Aviationwikiflight, Nfutvol and Rosbif73 are correct; this was not a suitable close for a non-admin. The fact that Sandstein did not see a consensus there should have made that obvious. I appreciate you helping out in AfD, but please make sure you review WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	for all the tireless effort you do here on wikipedia. enjoy it 45BearsFan (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! Electricmemory (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Electricmemory, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Youzap22 (talk · contribs)'s behaviour is vandalism only account, so WP:AIV might be a quicker process if taking their editing on different articles into consideration. -Lemonaka 12:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lemonaka I wasn't certain if AIV was the appropriate place for it. Electricmemory (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Electricmemory. Thank you for your work on Airbus Helicopters H140. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for taking the time to create the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 07:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Markham street circuit. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. jolielover♥talk 16:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover I understand it is of poor quality currently, but that stub is of great important to the American Open Wheel Racing project currently, and is more likely to be improved by project members if in mainspace. Electricmemory (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Electricmemory, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Electricmemory. Thank you for your work on 2022 in Washington (state). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this articles, consistent with others in the series; it looks like the 2021 page hasn't been created yet, but others are up.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Kish Air into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. The4lines |||| (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@The4lines Thanks for catching that. I was mid-way through the draft, left to go do something else and completely forgot to do the rest of the editing I had in mind Electricmemory (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Some suggested reading: WP:DFTT. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you are changing "Census" to "census" on hundreds of links, where the upper-case "Census" leads to a redirect which isn't broken. Also, on most of the articles I looked at, the piped text was "census", which is correct. Perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems to meet the criteria of WP:NOTBROKEN. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Per much previous discussion on this exact matter- WP:NOTBROKEN only really applies to piped links, where the incorrect text wouldn't be seen by someone reading the normal page. If it's a non-piped (visible) link then it's no different from a typo since the text is visible. Electricmemory (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess my next question would be, why waste your time making hundreds of edits, which have absolutely no impact, but whatever. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They hardly have "absolutely no impact"... what's the difference between making 1 minor edit to fix a miscapitalized word, and 1000? it's the exact same error, just on a larger scale. Has to be fixed by somebody at some point. Electricmemory (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Why does it have to be fixed? The reader sees the correct version, and the incorrect word--which is unseen by the readers--leads to the same article. Anyway, whatever. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You're thinking of piped links. That's not what I'm after here... Electricmemory (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to emphasize what Magnolia677 stated above, your mass edits accomplish nothing, as nothing is broken and nothing is being fixed. As in this edit, (and too many others), the link that you are changing African American (U.S. Census) (with "Census" capitalized) is a redirect to Race and ethnicity in the United States census, which is exactly where African American (U.S. census) (with "census" in lowercase) links. Your edits change nothing as both are redirects to the exact same article; the change in capitalization changes nothing other than which redirect the article uses. Nothing meaningful has changed in any of these massive number of semi-automated edits. These edits are a spectacular waste of time and effort. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alansohn That is demonstrably false. The vast majority are visible capitalization errors; fixing this in this mass manner is no different than fixing each one individually. Visible capitalization errors are errors which require fixing. In addition, the lead section of Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations states This report is limited to 2,000 items. To show more items, fix miscapitalized links.. There are far more such capitalization errors, many of which do require fixing, which do not appear on the list because it is already full of 2000 other items. If anything, it's useful even just to clear the list out. Electricmemory (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This is demonstrably true and Rule 4 of WP:AWBRULES could not be any clearer: "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits."

Of your 500 most recent edits, 497 were the exact same pointless fix to change African American (U.S. Census) (with "Census" capitalized) to African American (U.S. census) (with "census" in lowercase), both of which redirect to Race and ethnicity in the United States census; this is the very definition of an insignificant or inconsequential edit. Mindlessly reading a report and failing to distinguish between which edits are mostly useless and which are completely useless, as these edits are, is your responsibility.

Further such trivial edits made in the face of clear opposition will likely result in the loss of your AWB privileges. Alansohn (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alansohn Threatening to try and take AWB away from me because you do not like that I am fixing capitalization errors leads nowhere. A capitalization error is exactly that: an error. Errors require fixing. The vast majority of my edits have made some visible change to the rendered page, so you saying they haven't is false. Electricmemory (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Census" is only capitalized in the context of government-run census bureaus. When referring to a previous census, or a section of such, it is not capitalized. To have it capitalized when it should not be is an error. Electricmemory (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alansohn I'm going to run some testing to see if I can tune the AWB settings to make us both happy. I believe it might be possible to set it up to only make strictly visible edits. Electricmemory (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

When using told you must check to make sure your edits are actually doing what you intend and aren't breaking links. This edit] broke many links to American Football League, a proper noun that is always capitalized. That is unacceptable use of tools. Be more cautious and use preview to verify the outcome. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Oknazevad Hm. That definitely wasn't my intention... and I thought I was checking those. I think I screwed up something in the setting for that, it was only supposed to be looking for direct links to American Football. Electricmemory (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to 2025 Petit Le Mans. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Toni Breidinger.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

You removed a YouTube link on that page simply because you don't like it. You don't get to make unilateral decisions like that. The link is in line with Wikipedia policy and I'm replacing it. It is not a reaction video. It is explanatory, by a pilot who was a naval pilot, served in the Pentagon, flew in Afghanistan and Iraq, got a PhD in psychology to improve his communication skills in the cockpit, and flew for 34 years with American Airlines. He's a recognized expert in his field. His video offers credible support for the article's explanation for the plane's behavior. I would have used it as a source in the article body, but I chose to be conservative. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker No, I removed it because it is a self-titled reaction video. Such videos are never neutral sources/viewpoints. I even said this in the edit summary, yet you chose to ignore that and accused me of removing it because "I didn't like it". You don't get to unilaterally assume why I did something. Also, the way you've written this message to me is a borderline personal attack; I'd watch what you say before I decide to bring you to ANI. Electricmemory (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This is said in the specific variant: "Turkey's Erciyes modernization program covers modernization of the avionics of C-130B/E variants of the aircraft." it's in the article. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked It needs to be more clear. Searching for "C-130EM" within the page yields no results. Electricmemory (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked Made a redirect for it. That should be enough. Electricmemory (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Schedule

• The December 2025 administrator elections are set to proceed.
• We plan to use the following schedule:
  • Nov 25 – Dec 1: Candidate sign-up
  • Dec 4 – Dec 8: Discussion phase
  • Dec 9 – Dec 15: SecurePoll voting phase
• If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
• December 4–8 - Discussion phase
• December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion phase of the December 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 4–8 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Discussion phase.

On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Pearson Field! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations: try the Citer tool, or in the wikitext editor, try the reFill tool, and in the Visual Editor, the reference dialog can convert some bare urls into a full citation. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Electricmemory, can I ask why you’re still using bare URLs? As described above, while bare URLs are absolutely better than no citation at all, they’re rather unhelpful to the reader as they present as nothing but the URL, whereas fully structured citations display information such as title, publisher, author etc. as appropriate. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

No point in putting that effort in if deletionists such as yourself will go and erase it rather than fix an error. I'll fix it though Electricmemory (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you know full well that we do not add unsourced content to Wikipedia. Per WP:BURDEN, it’s your responsibility to cite content you add. You’ve been on this site long enough, and only this month we’ve discussed this very point on my talk page. You’re an experienced editor, so what gives? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 You are over-citing WP:BURDEN; instead of improving errors you find on Wikipedia, you choose to make things worse by removing information. Several citations for that info were available on the linked page within that text you removed. Instead of repairing it yourself, you decided for some reason to delete it and thus make Wikipedia worse. This behavior is wholly unhelpful and could constitute vandalism in certain circumstances; if you continue doing things like this, I will not hesitate to raise the issue with others. Stop. Electricmemory (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

And yet again, two edits with zero sources, reverted by both myself and @Jetstreamer. I respect you don’t want to be templated, but consider this a warning - you must provide reliable sources for your edits; it isn’t optional. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 Literally the only thing you do on Wikipedia is go around reverting aviation edits. Try adding something for a change. And do not threaten me :) Electricmemory (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

My friend, you are the one causing problems here by not providing reliable sources. As you have been told numerous times, they are not optional and yet you appear to ignore this advice. This isn’t a threat, it’s information - the warning is that if you don’t listen to advice, you may wind up with a report to the administrators noticeboard. Please don’t let it get that far, and heed the advice you’ve been given. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 I am plenty close to dragging you there myself. Multiple times previously editors have indeed found themselves in trouble for not heeding WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:PRESERVE and likewise. Electricmemory (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm well aware this will continue to fall on deaf ears, but we would all be better off if you would WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of whining on talk pages. Electricmemory (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Consider this your only warning about WP:CIVIL. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Do not speak down to me as if you believe yourself to be above me. You yourself are actively choosing repeatedly to complain on every talk page you can find instead of fixing the issue. This gives the impression you do not actually care about the problems and simply wish to complain about them. Electricmemory (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Electricmemory,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 06:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit late in response, but thank you! Electricmemory (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi - you say there's already a source there that verifies the end date... which source would this be? No source has been added or modified when the end date was added... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Electricmemory. The content I restored should just be suppressed/deleted. I am deeply deeply deeply sorry. As a Wikipedia contributor, it is my job to hold myself accountable for all my actions and explain them. I should have never restored that content. I don't think I was even aware of what I was restoring to be frank. The remarks I restored were purely racist, offensive, defamatory, disgusting and unacceptable. I made a massive mistake. I do want to give you thanks for restoring the last stable version of the article Lindsey Vonn. Extended Protection confirmation will give this protection. I think I was looking at the article because of what had happened with the incident, but there are no excuses of what happened. I am absolutely ashamed of myself for restoring this, in spite of the fact I had no intent to restore offensive content. The idea that I would find myself in this situation is just beyond belief. There a ZERO excuses for me to add this and stay silent. Because when we make mistakes, we cannot stay silent. I am sorry to everyone I might have/did offend. This was in no ways my intent to offend anyone. I am pure sickened that I did this. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere Hey man calm down. It's important to be careful with edits you make but you didn't offend people yourself because it was accidental. If you want your edit to be suppressed I suggest asking an administrator on their talk page; they should understand with some context. Electricmemory (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Your right. I do need to calm down. I do both have Autism and ADHD and get Anxious at times so that might relate to me not being very calm and trying to saying all this stuff. I just got extremely worried. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I get it, no worries. Good that you said all this, because most of the time people choose instead to argue about it or say nothing at all. Electricmemory (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill What did I edit related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe ????Electricmemory (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You have participated in this thread involving Eastern European politics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. The blue message box says "edited a page" which makes it sound like an article. Electricmemory (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Electricmemory - flat out refusal to acknowledge WP:BURDEN and civility. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, why is this needed? It’s literally a duplicate of every row in the table… I removed it for that reason - it’s unnecessary duplication. That link takes you to the “parent” fleet page, and each row in the table has a link to one of the specific aircraft pages on that website. Why do we need the parent page when all the “child” pages are cited against the row to which they apply? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Because it's common practice to cite a source at the top of the fleet table, and it's backing up the claim that they currently operate those aircraft. It's always good practice to have a "general" source that backs up a table as a whole. The subpages listed next to each aircraft type are primarily for the seat layouts, and don't verify that the fleet currently includes all of the aircraft listed as a whole. Electricmemory (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Arguably, I'd say it isn't necessary to have all the subpages listed next to the individual aircraft types, and would be plenty adequate to simply have the "parent" page at the top. Electricmemory (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree on this point - the parent page doesn't verify each individual aircraft, and we shouldn't be expecting readers to have to click through to different pages to verify the content, especially if we're able to provide direct links (which in this case we can) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I would agree in most cases - but in this case the source is identical to the sources in each row of the table, which means you're duplicating sources rather than adding a useful additional source. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 It isn't "identical", it's a different page (hence "click through") but this is a rather pointless argument. Electricmemory (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

so why is it needed? It’s genuinely not needed given the exact same source is being used. The “parent” source “clicks through” as you call it to the exact same sources that are given on each individual table row… it’s literally a duplicate. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

By the way @Danners430, this is the main problem I had with your editing practices. It's much better if you come and communicate like this on a talk page. Issues get worked out much better that way, when you take the effort to discuss it with the editor you disagree with (ideally before reverting). Communication is and has always been key on Wikipedia and you will find yourself and others having a much better time if you try to communicate well. Electricmemory (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the entirety of that message per the talk page guidelines - comment on content, not the editor. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Case in point... Electricmemory (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion over contentious edits is required, it isn't optional. Electricmemory (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my conduct you can take it to the appropriate notice board. I am not discussing it with you here or anywhere other than that. I am here to discuss a content dispute, nothing else. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Electricmemory. I wanted to let you know that I removed the CSD tag you placed on the above redirect. The conversation on the talk page aside, it still isn't a typo or misnomer, which makes it ineligible for R3. Feel free to take it to RFD if you still want it deleted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer Hi, it is indeed an "implausible typo" because the odds of anyone typing that title are extremely low, and only 3 maintenance pages link to it anyways. There is simply no reason for it to exist. Electricmemory (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

A typo is a misspelling. Including an acronym of the title as part of the title is not a misspelling. What you say might be a valid reason to delete the redirect, but it's not a valid reason to speedy delete the redirect. Again, you're more than welcome to nominate it at RFD, and me contesting the CSD does not automatically mean I'll !vote to keep it over there. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Electricmemory. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Markham Centre, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree You were absolutely correct in issuing this block, however I must ask- does this solve anything else? I made my points clear, and evidently you seem to agree with the other editor involved, but the issue still persists. What now? Electricmemory (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that they have once again restored their preferred version of the page without discussion… so that’s now three editors that disagree with them. Thank you for protecting it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Dude we’ve been over this. I couldn’t possibly care less about where the refs are, but I do care about the duplicated citations and formatting errors you and others keep adding back in. Just remove them! I shouldn’t have to spend 30 minutes removing them again. This is why I said you should put the refs back manually, to kindly spare me from having to do all that over again, which isn’t fair. Electricmemory (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)