Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.)
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)[reply]
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.-- Ponyobons mots20:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.-- Ponyobons mots20:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing User Sennecaster shares her thoughts on her recent RfA and the aspects that might have played a role in making it successful.
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. SounderBruce05:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. SounderBruce06:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
News from the WMF: Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan A look at some product and tech highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan (July–December 2024).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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.
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
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.[reply]
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 recognizedexpertinhisfield. 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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.
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.
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.
.jpg)
