User talk:WhaleFarm

Hi WhaleFarm! I noticed your contributions to Scheimpflug principle 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! — voidxor 14:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eric John Swanson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Under the notable definition of acedemics, it would seem that CTO of a $1B company, published papers, inventor of nearly 100 patents, and teaching a graduate level engineering class for 13 years would meet the criteria. What am I missing? WhaleFarm (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi WhaleFarm! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, I noticed that you have made additions to the 'History' section of 'Transistor–transistor logic'. The text that you have added indicates a number of citations (note the numbers enclosed in square brackets) but none of the actual citations have been added. Was the text pasted from somewhere? If yes, please note that this might run afoul of rules regarding copyright. If no, please see this page for help on how to add citations. wneo (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. Sorry, I wrote that section, and retrived the real citations. I've been editing in word, and then pasting into WP. I guess I didn't get the reference format right. Any advice on a better workflow? Getting the citations right is a slow process. I'm trying to edit more in source mode.

I'll get it fixed. WhaleFarm (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I've applied a fix. I really appreciate you finding this. It would be great if you check my work. Any advice appreciated. WhaleFarm (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The citations look good now. Great work! wneo (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AllWeKnowOfHeaven was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The topic might or might not be notable, but the content also needs improvement. The long list of patents shouldn't be here, and we should try to limit the number of primary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eric John Swanson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This was not a helpful review. I'm not sure you should continue to try to get this through the AfC gauntlet. We can move it to mainspace and see if anyone nominates it for deletion. It is usually easier to prevent something from getting deleted at AfD than it is to get it accepted at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I see the reviewer is blocked. I'm going to add another newspaper article I found, and look at trimming the lists. WhaleFarm (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi WhaleFarm. Thank you for your work on Vacuum tube characteristics. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please use proper mat forms for equations, see MOS:MATH.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Superregenerative receiver is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of WhaleFarm -- WhaleFarm (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that you wrote a GA review for ChatGPT. Thank you for this. However, it was noticed that the review shows some LLM signs. There is a heightened degree of sensitivity with regard to LLMs for the GA-process, so whether or not you actually did use LLMs as part of the review, some do not look favorably on this, so in the future please try to "steer clear" of anything that might smell like a transformer. Just letting you know and thanks again for helping out. There is a mentorship request section if you would like guidance for GA reviewing as well. It has helped me a lot as I have made my first few tentative GA reviews. Pietrus1 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I use dictation, as my high speed typing days are behind me. The creative content is all mine, but the typing is not. Any advice on how to use dictation without smelling? My over-use of passive voice, and a lot of adjectives, probably don't help.

I would love to pick up a mentor on this, where do I look? The logistics of the first review were painful. WhaleFarm (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

On the first point, I think that is reasonable, but I would not be the best person to ask there. Maybe @HurricaneZeta can offer assistance. On the second point, mentorship is available at WP:Good article mentorship. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I can help with mentorship, though it would be better to start fresh on a new review. I commend you for wanting to review GANs, especially this one, but there is a process and someone said the review was improper (which is how I got alerted to this). WP:RGA and the others linked in its see also section are a good start. HurricaneZeta^C 14:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I started down the GA path as self tutoring into how all of the SP plumbing works. Looks like it bit off a big chunk. Do you recomend a good article to start? Maybe with less than 250 references?

there's a lot of material about what makes a GA, but little tutorial about the process. Any insight on expected protocol/ interaction with other editors would help. What is the normal interaction/colaboration. What would you think about mentoring me on the CIH article? It seems reasonable in scope. WhaleFarm (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is the template I have been using personally, hopefully it offers some clarity. Feel free to use it and/or modify it. You can also ping Zeta in each review by using the @ key and typing the username subsequently. It should appear in the dropdown.

Review Template

Previous Reviews/Comments:

*

Well-written:

(a) (prose)

Clarity:

*

Acronyms and technical terms

*

Conciseness

*

Spelling and Grammar

*

(b) (MoS)

Lead:

*

Layout:

*

Problematic Word Choice:

*

Special Considerations (for fiction or list):

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

(a) (references)

Links Functioning:

[X]:

Citation Formatting:

Quote Issues:

*

Divergence between reference and text:

[X]:

(b) (citations to reliable sources)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

(c) (original research)

Checking each reference:

[X]:

(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)

Earwig Results:

*

Manual Pass:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

(a) (major aspects)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

(b) (focus/scope)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Opinions presented as facts:

*

Facts presented as opinions:

*

Good/Bad Implications:

*

Participation in Arguments:

*

Potentially Contentious Labels:

*

Fringe Views:

*

Minor Points Given Undue Weight:

*

Competing Views Integrated Well:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

====Result====

Overall result: Undetermined

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Pietrus1 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I started down the GA path as self tutoring into how all of the SP plumbing works. Looks like it bit off a big chunk. Do you recomend a good article to start? Maybe with less than 250 references?

there's a lot of material about what makes a GA, but little tutorial about the process. Any insight on expected protocol/ interaction with other editors would help. What is the normal interaction/colaboration. What would you think about mentoring me on the CIH article? It seems reasonable in scope. WhaleFarm (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Superregenerative receiver is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pietrus1 -- Pietrus1 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)