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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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]

@AVA Navigate Huh? Electricmemory (talk) 05:39, 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]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning to lecture anyone. Electricmemory (talk) 20:38, 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.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my mistake. I'm sorry. Electricmemory (talk) 20:48, 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]

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

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

Hello Electricmemory! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Userpage question, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Electricmemory! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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. SounderBruce 06:03, 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]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[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]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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]

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)[reply]

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:

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

@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)[reply]