User talk:Aaron Liu - Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to ask you a question. I m currently working on translating the MS-20 Daglezja page. I have made a lot of progress in translating the page into English however I m stuck with translating the infobox part if you could guide me on how to translate the infobox that would be very much appreciated. --Shadowfax33 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Does double-clicking the infobox not work? Could you send me a screenshot? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, double-clicking the infobox does work however, I can't change the information or translate it. I m not sure how to send you a screenshot of this issue as I m still learning how to operate on Wikipedia, I m a beginner :)

Shadowfax33 (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can just upload the screenshot to any platform you'd like. I'd recommend litterbox.moe with a 3-day time limit. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, unfortunately, litterbox.moe is not working at my end, therefore I uploaded the screenshot into pinterest here is the link

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/1045398132252793015

Shadowfax33 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mean double-clicking the box in the English-translated side of the interface, assuming you're using the translation tool. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is this what you mean? https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/1045398132252824451/ Shadowfax33 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see that you have deleted the original template. Remember all the fields in the original article, then insert a template called {{infobox weapon}}. See Tiger I for an example of how to use it. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was able to use the {{

infobox weapon

}} which you recommend, also I was able to translate the page successfully, but unfortunately, I can't post the article as it is only for experienced users here is the page name User:Shadowfax33/MS-20 Daglezja

Shadowfax33 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've submitted the page to Articles for creation and moved it. Just wait for a review from someone experienced now. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

From a quick scan, you probably want to fix the citation errors, make the lede grammatical, and back up "construction details" with sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, according to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, references should be placed after punctuation. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the help. I would not be able to do this without you. Also, thank you for fixing the citation error. I have a question. I just created another article, and I would like to know what is approximately the duration time for a person to review the articles. Shadowfax33 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You need to submit it through WP:AFC for it to be reviewed. That said, the review time ranges from a week to four months. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you for the information Shadowfax33 (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've moved it again. This time, you should probably try and put the references after punctuation yourself. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you guide me how I punctuate the references? So in the future, I can do it myself? Shadowfax33 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just move punctuation right after a reference to right before the reference instead. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, you're in luck that you're creating pages for military history. That topic's associated WikiProject is one of the most active groups of editors on Wikipedia, and it seems that Utopes is a dedicated reviewer. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's great to hear, this is the kind of informaiton that will motiaved me to writer more artciles, I will keep this in mind when createing new articles also thank you for helping me out with the punctuation of references Shadowfax33 (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I put a comment in the delete discussion for the burnt toast theory, it was removed, I suspect because it was in the wrong place? It appeared to be the place to put it. I think that the deletion should go ahead, and I put this elsewhere, and here, to help the cause. I'm not adept at maneuvering the slightly arcane protocols of Wikipedia. Comments and/or guidance? Thanks for any help in advance. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Your comment was long, irrelevant discussion of the subject itself, which has no bearing over whether to delete, so I removed it per WP:NOTFORUM.
(It was also in the wrong place as it was not a reply, but that's really not a problem. If it were the only thing wrong, I'd just move it to the correct place (a new bullet point at the bottom) instead.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

NO. It was relevant - you don't want a WRONG, BS article on Wikipedia do you?? It has all bearing on the deletion. The theory is WRONG. It can be relevant all it wants, but just being relevant is not a sole reason to put an article on Wikipedia; a article about a theory that is wrong. I don't think it was long compared to all the bloated, convoluted discussion and theorizing about whether the theory is "relevant". It appears to have come from a single ticktok posting. Talk about relevance???? Are you all just a bunch of 12 year olds "I must be true, one person on tick tok said it was!!!!!". Just a few days ago a lady from Wikipedia sent me a form email asking if I was going to make another donation. You are making that easy. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because nearly none of us know much about anything, we don't trust ourselves to know what's factual unless we're discussing a source's reliability or the fact in question belongs to a few extremely basic cases; instead, we rely on outside Wikipedia:Reliable sources to determine factuality. AFAIK, no source that repeats your argument exists.While I half-agree with your opinion on the source, that's just an opinion and therefore falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it, not to mention the extremely similar concept of Blessing in disguise, which I !voted to merge the article into instead of keeping.Attempting to refute the subject itself is irrelevant to an article's notability (i.e. coverage), which is the only thing that determines whether an article should be deleted. You may notice that we cover hoaxes that have received significant coverage as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this move of "Idea for a bot" at Village Pump (Idea Lab): A "bot idea" is not a bot request. The editor was proposing to make changes to people's comments and asking feedback on that. That is what people were replying to. Please revert your move. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SamuelRiv The editor said "If you can work it, go ahead.". That seems like requesting a bot to me. Even bots that make changes to comments are requested at bot request. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SamuelRiv I will be moving it back to the place where people who can create bots reside today. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has not the slightest thing to do with creating a bot. The discussion is not about bots. The user who created the thread has not requested this. Why would you do this? SamuelRiv (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It literally says "Idea for a bot": So why don’t we have a bot, that sweeps edits for en.m.wikipedia links, and changes them to en.wikipedia? I’m not a coding guy, so I couldn’t build this myself, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Matticusmadness. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yo. Yeah, I remember this. I wouldn’t have a clue if there was consensus for it, or how to chuck together the code for it, so put it in the ideas section. If anyone can gather the consensus for it to exist, then build it, fire away!

Primarily on that I don’t know if Consensus exists for it (I had one person mention it, but that’s it), I’m not requesting said bot, per se, I’m making it an idea, hence, Ideas Lab.

Sorry Aaron, but I agree with Samuel. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do i cite in an article --اُسید محمود (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ey, welcome! I just dropped a bunch of links at your talk page, but for this specific question, you can see Help:Referencing for beginners. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Aaron Liu,

While I appreciate all of your contributions to the project, I'd like you to participate less agressively in AFD deletion discussions. Sometimes you really go after editors whom you disagree with in a way that resembles bludgeoning. Some editors just want to review the nomination statement, the article and its sources and offer their opinion, not enter a debate about it. And editors are not required to respond to questions posed to them and they are less likely to respond if the comments are posted in an accusatory tone. While it is, of course, completely fine to ask an editor to clarify their AFD argument if it is less than clear, I think you need to not to consider AFD discussions as adversarial with a winning side and a losing side. It's a discussion about notability, policy and sources and because the atmosphere can get tense, civility is very important at all times.

I don't mean to discourage your participation in AFDs as I value reading your opinion. It's just I hope you don't pursue editors if you they don't offer an opinion you agree with. Let them have their say and they can move on to participate in another AFD discussion. Thank you again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. What do you think about the way I've responded to Clarinetguy after the relist? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

For one thing, it probably had little impact on the final outcome. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this comment: I'm not really sure what you mean by "By query CSS class I mean all userpage links next to timestamps." From what I can see, user page links next to timestamps in signatures are not contained within an HTML element with a common CSS class. (Your favourite highlighting script, as well as the other one mentioned in the thread by name, parses the links on the page to find ones that point to user pages.) As Chaotic Enby stated, the point is that signatures themselves are not impersonation proof. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is that you walk backwards from the "ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink" class and then do link detection with a heuristic like the scripts do. I agree with Enby that using someone else's signature would be too extreme and a bit unreasonable a case, though I do see what they mean now. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification. Guess it depends if the reader only wants to know about users whose names appear next to timestamps (usually when signing), or any users that are mentioned and linked in discussions. (Impersonation is an extreme and unreasonable thing to do, but if it's going to happen, that's how it will be done: someone will register a username that's the same except some minor change, like replacing a letter like an o with a nearly indistinguishable doppelganger, and then the signature will be mimicked.) isaacl (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just fyi, the report you are trying to add back to WP:EFFPR is a duplicate of the report below it, so it's not necessary to have it. Ternera (talk) Ternera (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I self-reverted a minute before you made this comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of generic and genericized trademarks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endo. 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) 07:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have a question regarding the User page, how can I translate my user page into another language? Do I have to use the translation page tool which is used to translate articles? --Shadowfax33 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the translation tool can only be used for articles. Admittedly, information on translating user pages is somewhat obscure, but here's how to do it:

1. Manually create your user page in the other language's wiki. We'll use plwiki (Polish Wikipedia, pl.wikipedia.org) here as an example.
   • That means you have to translate your user page manually, which is just like creating a normal page.
2. Have your user pages link to each other. That means you'll put [[pl:User:Shadowfax33]] on en:User:Shadowfax33 and [[en:User:Shadowfax33]] on pl:User:Shadowfax33.

I'm not sure if that's clear enough. Feel free to ask if you have any questions! Aaron Liu (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I did as you said, I added [[pl:User:Shadowfax33]] to en:User:Shadowfax33 page and added [[en:User:Shadowfax33]] on pl:User:Shadowfax33. Thanks for the help :) Shadowfax33 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi - just a comment on your closing of the discussion. While there's clearly a consensus to keep, I do not see that there's a consensus for speedy keep (numerically there were three SKs and four keeps). I made an explicit argument stating why speedy keep should not apply (referencing WP:CSK); ideally your close should indicate how you have assessed the arguments that produced a consensus for speedy keep as against keep. It's not that important an issue, as the result will remain unchanged, but consider that a WP:NAC which involves the application of WP:IAR (which WP:SNOW is a form of) should offer some detail of reasoning. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, a gentle heads up, please be aware not to bold text in closing as it interferes with the AfD stats tool: [1]. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks. Amended. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to repeat myself, but please don't bold SNOW, it interferes with the AfD Statistics Tool. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification; I thought you meant how I manually unbolded "and". However, the tool correctly recognizes SNOW keeps (see "The wrong kind of snow") but lists them as speedy keeps.This is apparently intended behavior, and I do believe bolding the SNOW is a useful distinction. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Goldsztajn In fact, it was added like that because of a user request, despite Wikipedia:Speedy keep#What is not a speedy-keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I became aware of that too just now! Unfortunately, it is out of alignment with the guideline. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's an upstream bug. I'll revert this for now. One of their maintainers (apparently @0xDeadbeef, @Enterprisey, and @Legoktm) can add a separate row/column for SNOW later. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, can you clarify what's wrong with the tool and what needs fixing? Legoktm (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The tool currently treats "SNOW" the same as "speedy", which is out of line with the Wikipedia:Speedy keep#What is not a speedy-keep guideline. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aaron Liu, I just saw this AFD. You cast a "vote" here so you were involved. It was inappropriate for you to close this AFD. This closure could easily be contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This was not a good closure. Please do not ever close a discussion you are involved in unless you are the nominator and you are withdrawing your nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Aaron Liu - I think this has become somewhat contested now, given that you reverted my edit to the closure which I did so that the AfD tools records the outcome properly. Can I request that you to vacate your closure and let it be done by an admin? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me. I was of the impression that overwhelming consensus can still be reflected per all the reasons for SNOW. Also, I still stand by bolding "SNOW"; we should not be altering clarity just because an external tool has a bug. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi - thanks for reverting. I offer a small piece of unsolicited advice: be conscious that even times where something might seem obvious to you, reasonable people can reach different conclusions. This is particularly the case with NACs. And FWIW, while clearly there's an IAR element to SNOW, it's not something to be used to trump *all* gudielines/convention at the same moment (WP:NACD/WP:NACINV). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

How Creat Personal profile in Wikipedia --Sheikh Jahidul Hasan Fahim (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm getting this question a lot. Well, it's heavily advised against. See Help:Your first article § Things to avoid. First of all, you have to meet wp:notability, which means that you have to be the main subject of several articles from wp:reliable sources. Secondly, you have to be terribly unbiased about yourself. If you really want to do this, you can check out the instructions at Help:Your first article. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you're talking about your user page (User:Sheikh Jahidul Hasan Fahim), see Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a workplace network that over a thousand people use (and I can tell that the intended blockee is definitely lying about their location). I'd appeal via UTRS with a bit more details, but I'm not sure which button to use. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I went with a month of IPBE. Yamla is smarter than me, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A month of IPBE is a perfectly reasonable approach here. :) Happy editing, Aaron Liu. --Yamla (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Awwww, thanks you two! Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I think this is the first time Yamla accepted an unblock request on one of my blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourceTable? When discussing if an article meets WP:GNG it can be useful to discuss sources and whether they are reliable, indepth and constitute significant coverage. If you like it we can add it to Wikipedia:User scripts/List and Wikipedia:Scripts++. Polygnotus (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Storrs, Connecticut on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply