User talk:TechnoSquirrel69

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Hi TechnoSquirrel69,

I wanted to say thank you for taking the time and reviewing my draft about a scientist 2 days ago. I reached out to couple of people from wiki community to give me advice on what can be changed in order to improve the article and I made many amends since then based on the recommendations. Would you mind to please check the draft Draft:Mark Kotter again and let me know your thoughts? I'm still learning a lot about editing Wikipedia and I found this community is incredible and so helpful.

Best wishes,

Damjana Damjana12 (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Damjana12, thanks for making those changes on the draft and I'm glad to know you're feeling comfortable in the community! I don't typically review AfC submissions on request, and almost never for drafts I've already reviewed in the past. In the interest of keeping the process impartial, I think it would be best to let another reviewer take this one; your draft is already in the queue and will be picked up in time. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your response and for understanding my situation. I appreciate the clarification on the review process and completely understand the need for impartiality. It's great to know that my draft is already in the queue and will be reviewed in due course.

I don't have any further questions at the moment, but I’ll be sure to reach out if something comes up. Thanks again for your guidance and support!

Best regards, Damjana Damjana12 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:

• Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
• For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
• The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.
• You can create a new MMS list of users by moving one from this page.
• Consider sending a test message to yourself, to ensure that the message doesn't contain broken HTML that breaks talk pages.
• Messages should be signed. Unsigned messages will not be archived by bots.
• Messages should be signed before sending, so that they do not mass ping users who are linked in the message.

For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elli (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Elli! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

In early February of 2024 TechnoSquirrel69 made a small repair to the Editor of the Week nomination page. Curious, I chased it down and discovered an editor that is a prime example of doing what it takes to retain new editors. He has almost 20000 edits with a solid 40% in mainspace. His outgoing nature and willingness to take the time to show new editors "the road less travelled", through his kindness and communication, deserve attention and recognition. His talk page archives contain interactions with new editors that are examples we can all learn from. Seconded by Sohom and Ixtal.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

TechnoSquirrel is a climber

TechnoSquirrel69

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 7, 2024

In early February 2024 Editor TechnoSquirrel69 made a small repair to the Editor of the Week nomination page. Curious, I chased it down and discovered an editor that is a prime example of doing what it takes to retain new editors. He has almost 20000 edits with a solid 40% in mainspace. His outgoing nature and willingness to take the time to show new editors "the road less travelled", through his kindness and communication, deserve attention and recognition. His talk page archives contain interactions with new editors that are examples we can all learn from.

Recognized for

providing guidance and support

Notable work

Castle in the Sky

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 10:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster7, Ixtal, and Sohom Datta: Can't thank y'all enough! It's a genuine honor to be recognized for any of my work here, and I hope to continue doing as much of it as I can for the foreseeable future. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in July! Congratulations to Editor of the week! - Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Gerda! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your interest in this discussion, even though I disagree strongly with your closure. I had thought, as an editing newbie, of instantly reverting it. However, after more mature consideration, it seemed that it might be more productive (and certainly more polite) to discuss the matter with you first.

My initial reaction was that closure was inappropriate because I could see not see that any consensus (by any definition of the term) had been reached. And although 'consensus' has specifically been distinguished from 'majority', it is interesting to note that four contributors approved the idea of change, while only three preferred to keep.

Much more important, however, is that the use of the term 'primary topic' in the discussion by the "keepers", and by yourself in your closure, seems to indicate that a different problem was being discussed from that discussed by those calling for a change. Could I explain what I mean because, to me, this is not a contest, but an attempt to ensure that seekers of information on Wikipedia, especially those who are not experienced editors or administrators, find what they are seeking in the easiest, quickest way. There are actually two discrete issues here, which seem to have been confused:

1. The name of a subject has several different names or several different forms.

aubergine, eggplant

hammam, حمّام, ḥammām, hamam, hmam)

poisonous substance, poison

In these examples, each term is either a synonymous variant name, or a different grammatical form of a name of the same subject. We therefore choose the one most frequently used (where, perhaps, the number of searches made is a useful guide) and redirect the searcher from unused terms to the preferred term. This saves the searcher time by avoiding an intermediate ‘See:’ reference.

2. Two completely different subjects are members of a group, or have (historically or currently) been referred to by the same name, in addition to their currently preferred name.

strawberry, loganberry (different types of berry)

Hammam, Victorian Turkish baths (different types of hot-air baths)

In these examples, the terms are not synonyms, but individually separate and distinct subjects, so comparing the number of searches made for each is entirely irrelevant. Instead, we need to disambiguate them (ie, identify which meaning of a term is used in context) by leading searchers immediately to a page (such as Turkish Bath (disambiguation)—but preferably without the here unnecessary word ‘disambiguation’—which page perfectly defines the alternatives available, and enables them to reach the page they want.

As Wikipedia says in its guidance, disambiguation is for “Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis, though I would prefer the word 'subject' to 'topic'.)

When, instead of giving searchers an opportunity to find which of the alternative subjects they want, we redirect one of the subjects to a completely different subject, we are at the same time actively redirecting them away from the other subject. This is not a Wikipedia favoured neutral approach; it can even be seen as the beginning of a form of censorship.

Referring to the case specifically being discussed here, at present, all searches for “Turkish baths” are automatically redirected to Hammam. If this situation continues unchanged, then for Wikipedia to be consistent, searches for the film Steam: The Turkish Bath, and the painting The Turkish Bath by Ingres (and subjects like Trollope’s short story which does not yet have a Wikipedia article) should also be automatically redirected to Hammam. But we don’t do this because although, like Victorian Turkish baths, they may have been inspired by the hammam, they are different subjects.

I must apologise for the length of this posting, but I do hope that it will encourage you to revert your closure so that I may make a final attempt to explain the difference between these two issues and ask again for the redirect to be changed to a DAB. Best wishes, Ishpoloni (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 23 § Turkish bath, mostly for my reference later. Ishpoloni, thanks for your message; I'm currently traveling and can't get back to you at the moment. I'll get a response to you sometime tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"::" Thank you so much for letting me know. There's no instant hurry. Ishpoloni (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ishpoloni: I appreciate you for starting a conversation here before taking other action. I want to start by clarifying my role as the closer of the discussion. Closers try not to bring their personal opinions into their decisions when considering discussions; if I had an opinion to share, I would probably just participate in the discussion myself. As such, there isn't much use trying to convince me of your viewpoint here, as whether or not my opinion changes, my decision will remain the same as it pertains strictly to the weighing of arguments as they relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, presented by other editors within the discussion. I also want to note that deletion discussions are not a vote, so even though there were more editors who !voted to retarget, two of those were simple "per nominator" comments which did not substantially contribute to the discussion. Getting to the substance of your message, you are correct in saying that the two issues you have identified are quite distinct and require different solutions, but I have no reason to believe any of the other editors confused one for the other here. We're clearly within the scope of the second point you identified: the term Turkish bath is ambiguous, and could refer to one of several subjects. However, a disambiguation page is not always the best solution in these situations; in fact, reading a bit further from the section of the disambiguation guideline you quoted reveals a note about exactly that, which is expanded later in the page. Taking from the relevant section: "Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead ..." Discussion participants presented solid arguments about the amount and nature of traffic that the relevant articles receive as well as how the term is used in scholarship which, to me, indicated firm consensus to regard hammams as the primary topic. I thus made the decision to keep Turkish bath pointed at that article, serving as a "primary redirect". If you feel that my summary of the discussion was not accurate, feel free to open a deletion review, which will allow the community to reconsider my decision and overturn it if necessary. If you have any other questions about this, please let me know; I'm happy to help! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"::""::" @TechnoSquirrel69: Thank you for taking the time to reply so fully to my request, though I am, of course, extremely disappointed. In fact I was not trying to convince you of my view, but trying to provide a logical reason for you to reopen the discussion, and I did mention my understanding of the difference between consensus and majority.

Perhaps rather facetiously I am tempted to ask why we do not redirect 'Loganberry' to 'Apple' since, although they are both different fruits, more people look up apple than loganberry so it must be the "primary topic". 'Topic', as opposed to 'subject', is a word used confusedly throughout Wikipedia's guidance notes, and especially in the section you refer to.

I will take some time to decide what to do about this, though I suspect I will just bow out. When one reaches one's ninetieth year one tends to assess very carefully how one spends one's remaining time. I have spent three months of this period writing the first three-quarters of an article, after waiting two years in case anyone else wrote it; at the moment I cannot see the point of spending any more time on completing an article which prople are actively being turned away from reading, in favour of an article on a totally different subject.

I don't, by the way, take this personally but—as a retired librarian—as a blow to those seeking the simplest access from those who seem to prefer an arcane mystical code of rules.

I must end, however, with genuinely grateful thanks to you for having spent your own time on the issue. Best wishes. Ishpoloni (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]