User talk:Electrou

Welcome!

Hi Susbush! I noticed your contributions to Compact disc 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! ~Kvng (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usable references

Hello! I saw your change to synthetic radioisotope on recent changes of WikiProject Elements. I had to revert the change because the website used, Chemeurope encyclopedia, is a copy of Wikipedia. This means we would be citing ourselves. Other than that, I recommend to watch out for websites like Stackexchange that publish whatever a user writes without editorial control. Adding references is useful and a noble effort so keep up the great work otherwise!!! Recon rabbit 17:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to find a different, more reliable website next time while citing. I add citations and expand short articles. Susbush (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Susbush! Your additions to Curvature have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been warned for a copyright vio 2 times. Will I be blocked from editing? The copyright policy is very difficult to understand and follow. Literally the only solution I found that counteracts this policy, is to summarize any direct quotations rather than paraphrasing or direct unchanged quotations. I don't like the copyright policy, it's unfair and I don't understand why it's there. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Your edit to Non-ionizing radiation has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I atleast copy a small amount from the source? Susbush (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you must, quote. XabqEfdg (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing? Susbush (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing is not a good ides, as it tends to follow the source too closely. Summarize the material in your own words. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for details. — Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even paraphrase? Why? Susbush (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it says in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying an excessive amount of material directly from other sources." You should summarize rather than paraphrase. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll just summarize then. Susbush (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And write info in my own words. Susbush (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Match is not reliable outside of match results

The content added to Delta used Cage Match for other information outside of match results. WP:PW/Sources has Cage Match listed with restricted reliability. The information given falls outside that guideline. The other source is being reviewed for reliability. 2001:8003:5130:2601:800B:B1C:E04B:33D0 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direct link

Please do not place redirection links when there is direct links as you did in the article Radar, this is inefficient and can leed to disambiguation pages. Pierre cb (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged BLP violations

There is nothing wrong with these edits that you reverted: [1] [2] and presumably others. If someone reverts you as I did asking "how?" the answer is not to revert again, but to explain why the edit is a BLP violation. As WP:UV explains, if you do not have a firm grasp of policy and you are using automated tools inappropriately, you will be blocked from editing. SmartSE (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it says "possible unreferenced addition to BLP". Sorry for the inconvenience. Apologizing for alleged BLP violations. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The critical part is possible. SmartSE (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw some citations. Apologies for the inconvenience. Self-reverting my edits soon. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. I assume good faith. Everyone makes mistakes like I do. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :This is also very concerning and indicates that you do not understand what you are doing. Please stop using the tool right now. SmartSE (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do understand. I'm reverting "unreferenced content". But I didn't realize it was actually sourced. Reverting the edit soon. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, please don't block me from editing (or using the UV tool). There are plenty of times when I edit Wikipedia, that I just have no idea what I'm doing. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the edits. Don't block me. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I reverted the edits. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll make sure what I'm doing next time. Can I use UV now? (Please don't block me from editing, I just thought it was a BLP vio) Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. May I suggest that if you don't know what you're doing, next time you ask at WP:TEAHOUSE and someone will advise you. Can you explain briefly what BLP violations and vandalism mean? How can you distinguish a good edit from a bad one? SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is destroying the purpose of Wikipedia. (e.g. adding nonsense), A BLP vio is adding unreferenced content about biographies of living (or recently deceased) people. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not a tabloid, not an advertisement, not a book. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And when I edit, I'll thoroughly check the edit. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...

your recent post regarding editing from this IP address is incorrect, and appears to be a response, simply to a bot report. None of the editing in question involved improper posting of content, or improper use of sources. Indeed, the entire motivation is to complete Reflist entries with regard to bibliographic content (fix the many dead links, add authors, etc.), and to check WP article content to the sources to ensure they comply with WP:VERIFY. You will find that all of the edits were constructive, and are WP:VERIFY, BLP, etc. compliant. Moreover, you will find that the article now is much more trustworthy (though not yet entirely trustworthy) with regard to the sources that appear. Indeed, if you open the form of the article before we started, and the latest—don't do a diff, it will be too confusing—and compare the before and after, focusing on, e.g., the Reflist, the Honours section, and the lead, you will see the full evidence of this.

The reasons that the bots have responded, is that some entirely improper sources have been either hidden or moved—in the latter case, moved (e.g., to External links or Further reading), if they are improper where presented, but nevertheless contain useful content, and in the former case, hidden, if they are entirely improper and without perceivable merit (appearing at a point in the text entirely unrelated to any content they contain, and furthermore, with another egregous problem, e.g., that they are dead and untraceable). For an example of this, see/read the content of reference number [13], which was not removed despite being problematic.

You will also note between the before and after that the many issues of the article were tagged. This is inevitable, because as sources are checked, and found to have been mistakenly placed (e.g., a single end of paragraph citation that does not cover any or all of the content in the paragraph), it becomes necessary to annotate the unsourced content. But you will also note, if you spot check the article versions between the first and the last, that we are in the process of placing citations, so tags can be removed—for instance in the Honours section, which had less than half of its entries with citations when we started (as well as duplicated entries, inconsistent formats, etc.). Each cycle of our work, a greater percentage of that and other unsourced material is sourced, the text edited to reflect the content of the source found, and the tag annotating the problem removed.

All of this is to say, the revisions of the biography of this esteemed scientist, by these longstanding WP editors, have been careful, scholarly, and compliant with both spirit and letter of WP policies and guidelines. If the bots object, it is because they are imperfect, and cannot discern nuance. If the article appears to have its blemishes highlighted, it is because those blemishes need attention in order to heal.

Cheers, some former logging editors (and former faculty). 73.110.70.231 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTF, that text is lengthy, please summarize it Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We read and write books, to teach and edit and produce scholarship, to allow us to edit here. Reading brings comprehension and depth of understanding. This is on point, and not TL;DR. 73.110.70.231 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what are you doing on my talk page? Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain about MOS support

You have made a bunch of edits cited to the top-level Manual of Style, in which I cannot find support for your changes. Could you please point to the specific location in it for each of these:

Change ISBN formatting, such as converting a simple string of digits by inserting hyphens. There was a major RFC about this issue, with a conclusion of "no consensus" that any style is better. Instead, it is more like a personal preference, so it's likely to become an edit-war if every editor keeps switching to their personal preference.
Switching from "last2...last2...last3..." to "last...last2...last3...". The template examples I see generally use the 1/2/3, and it's obviously clearer about the meaning, to number the first
Including "s" in the piped-link text itself rather than outside for auto-linking. I see specific guidance that it's preferred to have it outside when the link is unpiped, and examples demonstrating that it works fine when it's outside, but cannot find a consensus preference for it to be inside.

DMacks (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

too weird, didn't understand Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invented a new slang: TW;DU (too weird; didn't understand) Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot understand what "Change ISBN formatting" means, when you made numerous edits that changed the formatting of ISBN, you should stop editing. You are responsible for your edits. Here, I will spell out some of it with examples. Look at this. See where you changed the "isbn="? Do not do that at all. In that same edit, see where you changed "[[pointer (computer programming)|pointer]]s" to "[[pointer (computer programming)|pointers]]"? Do not do that without explaining why. See where you removed the "<span class=..."? Do not do that. It breaks other pages that link to it. In your edit summaries, you said you were following the "Manual of Style". State where in the manual of style your ideas come from. DMacks (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just AutoFormatter Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to improve an article, but it was disruptive editing. Sorry for the inconvenience, reverting the edits. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't block me from editing Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the template tool warning, you must read and understand what your doing while editing, or you risk losing access to the tool, or even blocked from editing. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Wait, I don't understand what this notice means.... Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, I didn't assume good faith. I think I accidentally did rude behaviour. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]