User talk:Aaron Liu

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Notifications

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives.

Since I used a diff by you in this ANI discussion, I think I have to notify you of it. But you're not in trouble. Loki (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't scare us with a heading like that next time. Cheers, Aaron Liu (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, I wonder if you could please explain to me where I've gone wrong. I was advised to stop submitting my articles for creation, and simply to move them directly into mainspace, but I seem to have messed up the process (again). I'd very much appreciate you looking at wikipedia:lupinus exaltatus, if you have a minute, to tell me what I've done wrong, and how to avoid it next time. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems resolved by abductive. Just double check the contents of the "move" dialog before pressing "move page" and you should be fine. Note that the (article) namespace is where you want to move articles to; Wikipedia is for stuff related to contributing to Wikipedia. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Aaron.ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My areas of passion include underwater electronics, such as underwater sensors, underwater data collection systems, embedded systems, and buoy development. How can I select these types of topics for discussion and editing purposes? --Jagadees puthramannil (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ey! I'm not exactly sure what you mean by selecting topics, but we do have something called WikiProjects: task forces of editors who all want to contribute to articles about some topic. You can use Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding a project to search for a Wikiproject! However, your passions are a bit specific, so maybe you'd have to settle for a broader project like WP:SCUBA. Then, you can go to a WikiProject's article categories by quality, such as Category:Stub-Class Underwater diving articles. Happy editing! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

... where your comments were edited.... Your comment on the IP TP. Aaron, it never happened. All of the editor's accusations are false. The accusations against two admins, me, and probably anyone else that has any disagreement. I'm sure you mean well; but I don't think you are being helpful here. regards, O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Ip doesn't produce anything, then I'd say they're just being disruptive. However, I strongly hope for Ip to produce something that they just misinterpreted. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu is being very useful here by pointing out ways forward and not carrying ill will. I also notice you are seeking all topics I might have been involved and actively posting against whatever I have written or suggested. You are currently now replying negatively to two current RfCs I proposed and have posted on both minutes away from each other.

You are also posting here, on what could be some sort of forum shopping/canvassing, perhaps? I hope I am wrong and that you are not asking @Aaron Liu to punish me just because that's what you wanted and didn't get.

Might I suggest, given you are a very experienced editor, to please Wikipedia:Just drop it.

Thank you for being civil. Have a good day @Objective3000.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. These personal attacks and casting of aspersions must end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your aspersion assessment. I just re-read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and it doesnt apply. Yet you keep replying to my comments or suggestions elsewhere, even on articles you havent seem to have edited before.

Please @Objective3000, Wikipedia:Let it go.

The above essay states:

"Discuss things to find consensus, but don't argue just for the sake of making a point. Just let it go." Be the better person, the more experienced and better editor, just let it go.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are on my lengthy watchlist. Please stop these nasty posts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not forum shopping if it's not a forum. It's not uncommon for new accounts' edits to be scrutinized when someone has a suspicion, and you shouldn't be implicitly assuming that other editors carry ill will either. "Just drop it" doesn't mean you should reply to everything telling the other person to drop it; it just means that (ideally both of) you should drop it. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.

To show that I can move on I will drop these issues with @Objective3000. I wont reply nor mention them after this message, ever. Like you said, ideally, as per WP established norms, he would do the same.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:34CA:87CE:F550:B1EE (talk) 14:36, 4 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]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]