User talk:Aaron Liu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Joan Crawford page

The issue is with having it say that Joan was allegedly sexually assaulted by her stepfather per the dubious source that is Lawrence Quirk's 2002 book on Joan. Joan does not state in her book that her stepfather was inappropriate with her but actually a suitor of her mother's named Harry Hough. So why doesn't Joan's own words from her very own 1962 autobiography not supercede Lawrence Quirk's? 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:3447:E346:A491:3BEB (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Please establish consensus about whether or not it is a reliable source, I am not a consensus. Check the link in my response. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

How is Joan Crawford’s own autobiography (her own words while she was alive) not a far more reliable trustworthy source than Lawrence Quirk who was merely an acquaintance at best? 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:30CA:B33A:E1F7:235E (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

AGAIN, use the consensus process or just ask a more experienced editor Aaron Liu (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok so why then did you respond to my query in the first place? 2607:FEA8:5CA1:8F40:89AA:574C:4785:5954 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Because, in my experience, people like you tend to ask again and again. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Mayor pro-tem of Las Vegas

mayor pro-tem of Las Vegas has different rules than other city council members and have the same Powers as the mayor in the vacancy or the absence of mayor there was a mayor pro tem slot on the infobot on May 11 2019‎ and was remove I'm just replacing the mayor pro tem on the infobox 2603:8001:2902:64F4:103D:EE4E:1D:193E (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See the messages I left on the talk page, if you think you have reasonable reasons to dispute put them out or start a consensus discussions. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Question for admin

There's this IP 69.121.183.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that keeps making big constructive edits under "Minor detail edits". They haven't responded to any of the relevant notices on their talk page. What should I do? Additionally, there is another IP 2600:1700:BD70:9E70:9142:4977:898D:CF2A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that reverted most of previous IP's edits just bc of bad edit summaries. Is there an appropriate warning for that? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I dropped an FYI note on the talk page of 69.121.183.150. The other IP has not edited in several days so any concerns would be stale at this point. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the advice

So I read this at WP:VD and read it as you can warn them when you check the vandals other Contributions (or report to AIV straight away)...

If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise, you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user's talk page. Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them at...

As an aside. I did miss the bit that says mark vandalism reverts as minor, which I will do from now on. The reason I'm questioning this isn't because I doubt you at all but because when I've reported to AIV I've seen some rejected as insufficient warnings given.

The bit I'm confused about is that you say not to warn the editor if someone warned them about vandalism done later than the vandalism I found? So I just revert the earlier vandalism bur don't give them a warning? The vandalism page says you can warn them?

Again, you're an experienced editor so I will take on board what you say and not warn about vandalism that was done earlier but just revert. My head hurts lol. Knitsey (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I saw the following:

You should check that the user has made harmful or disruptive edits before issuing a warning, and that they have not already been warned for the same action by another editor. The user must be given a chance to see, and react to, each warning given.
— WP:UW

My interpretation of that is the second part of the sentence means that if you spot a problem in an edit, and a newer edit with the same problem has already been reverted and become the basis for an existing warning, you don't warn them and just revert the edit. I may be wrong though. (Side note: the above quote block was generated using {{tqb}}, it's a very useful template) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Just one aside, I was hoping to get Rollback at some point which I can't request unless I leave warnings about gf and vandalism? Rollback for vandalism (not gf edits) would be really useful sometimes. Knitsey (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything about that. The only mention of good faith I see says that you shouldn't rollback gf edits. Could you give me some pointers? Also, there are several tools and userscripts that can emulate rollback linked on WP:RBK. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It was 6 days between my warning and the previous. Or did you mean that the user didn't edit after the 3rd warning except to create the two articles that were deleted?

That actual brings up another question you might know the answer to. I was patrolling RC and reverted some vandalism but noticed the edit before it was also vandalism so reverted that as well. That edit was about 10-12 days earlier (I think) so I didn't warn the user as it was a while ago. Is there a set limit to giving a template warning on older edits?

On the Rollback request board then admins (rightly) check your edits to see if you are handling them correctly. If you're not using templates then they pick up on it. Knitsey (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if they created the two articles to main space before or after my warning. They're both deleted so I can't check the times. I might be missremembering but I thought I saw the article created on RC then followed it back to the editor. But, you know, memory. I'm not sure how I would have found the editor otherwise. Regardless, the timing of my warning might have been very close to them creating the article so they might have quickly created it then seen the talk page. Knitsey (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually scrap that. That just sounds like I'm making excuses now as I would have given the fouth warning even if they hadn't created that article.

Thank you for the information. I will make sure I check in future.

Just so I'm clear. If I find vandelism, revert then warn then notice the other edits are vandalism then I revert but don't warn as they won't have seen the first warning?

And thanks for the quote template, that's really useful. Knitsey (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep; you're welcome! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Editing help

Hi, i was the one editing the bishop of beverley, had to remove the outdated information. i see you quite active on the page itself and wanted to ask whether you would help me with creating a page for the new bishop as there is one for the rest, but not for him. let me know if you can help, cheers Liam Keatley (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You can take a look at WP:AfC and WP:BACKWARD. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And WP:YFA. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nanaia Mahuta

Thanks for making the image small again. I was editing on my phone and didn't realise how big I had made it. 222.154.124.124 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:94.120.200.190

You might want to go back and correct what you posted on that talk page; the link in the first sentence doesn't make sense. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ardabil

Simply clicking on what used to be written - steppe of Southern Russia - and what I changed it into - Pontic-Caspian steppe - shows it's the same thing. No source needed for grass being green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.219.224 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@95.178.219.224 thanks for talking this out. In that case, the narrower area south Russia is probably still better for precision. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. As the sentence says we are talking about the raids of the hill people of the Caucasus and the people of the steppes beyond. The locale of Caucasus is then named, but instead of the steppe being named too, it says South Russia, which not only doesn't cover the whole steppe, but covers half of the Caucasus too. It's apples and oranges. South Russia is a new administrative division too, so it's anachronistic to boot. The two peoples mentioned are divided by eco-geography, so their respective eco-geographical regions should follow. And not a modern admin. division that is half Caucasus, half (of the) steppe.

This is simple logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.219.224 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

But they were invaded by people inhabiting the part of the steppe in south russia? I don't see there being a source that says people from parts of the stpepe outside of south russia invaded Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"But they were invaded by people inhabiting the part of the steppe in south russia?" - source? The sentence only says 'steppe', and the steppe in question is the Pontic-Caspian steppe. The raids were coming from the hills - the Caucasus - and the steppe - the Ponto-Caspian steppe. The raiders are described on the basis of their eco-regions, so the ecoregions should be named. Southern Russia includes the Caucasus so it's disinformative. You could write 'the steppes just to the north of Caucasus, but not too far north", but from my students days, I remember steppe people there roaming the entire steppe, and the sentence does remain vague on WHICH nomads exactly were raiding, right? It referes to them in general. And in general they roamed the entire steppe. If we're going to nitpick, you would have to provide source that shows which nomads exactly were raiding and them being the ones who only lived in the southern part of the steppe. As you can see, you are overcomplicating things way too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.133.23 (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@95.178.133.23 It's in the source the paragraph cited... https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ardabil

Because of its proximity to the Caucasus and to the frontier of the Dār-al-ḥarb, Ardabīl was always vulnerable to incursions by the Caucasian mountain peoples and by the steppe dwellers of South Russia beyond the mountains.

Aaron Liu (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. But how do you know iranicaonline's South Russia means the same thing wikipedia's Southern_Russia means? It's a vague, arbitrary term. Shouldn't we just NAME the steppe in question? What was really incorrect in what you just reverted? Didn't it provide MORE information, instead of the anachronistic, vague 'Southern Russia'? Using modern, political terms is pretty un-academic even in normal cases, and especially here where the raiding peoples are described by the natural regions they come from?

OK, so your stance is that it can't say Pontic Caspian steppe because the source might not allow the whole of it. It does just refer to the steppe, though. The steppe parts of South Russia. So the most accurate thing would be to name only the part of the P C steppe that is in S R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.133.23 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Or simply 'the southern part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.133.23 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

1. I see no reason to doubt that the force isn’t referring to the widely accepted definition of Southern Russia. It’s an encyclopedia after all.
2. No, the Edit had less information. Southern Russia is a widely accepted term for the area and isn’t vague at all. The area referenced in that Edit was way wider while the original version was more specific.
3. AFAIK there is no widely accepted definition of “southern Pontic Caspian steppe”. Maybe “the part of … in southern Russia”?

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as previously explained. Re (3): there is no name for how you divide it (steppe within Southern Russia), because no such division exists in reality, which is why the nomads roamed across modern administrative divisions. It shows your division is artificial. But there are natural divisions, actually. Microregions. From the Kuban steppe in the west to the Kuma steppe in the east. There's North Caucasus too, way more specific than Southern Russia which reaches Saratov. North Caucasus both crossings over/around Caucasus Mt that follow in the txt too: Alan and Derbent Gates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.133.23 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Or simply '(North) Caucasian plains'. Way more in line with the natural context of the sentence. And more precise to. In any case, the hyperlink should lead to a natural category and not a modern administrative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.133.23 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

1. There is no reason to favor natural regions over administrative ones.
2. Southern Russia is NOT an administrative region. See the article.

Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

1. I strongly disagree. The sentence is about hill peoples and steppe peoples. Why not name these natural regions? It would be only logical and more informative.
2. OK, a modern political term then. Why do you insist on it? Encyclopaedias should strive for better than this old way of description, it should be left for Simple English wikipedia or somenthing. 'Pontic Caspian steppe' has been defined by scholars and is replacing such passe descriptions as 'Galatians settling modern Turkey'.
3. I cannot understand your uncompromising stance at all. Had the source said "from the rainforest in Rondonia" you would uncompromisingly disallow hyperlinking rainforest to Amazon rainforest? And if your argument is precision (which has no basis in history, the most famous such raid was by Cimmerians, and they inhabited the steppe outside South Russia too), what is wrong with my other proposals? Why didn't you answer to them at all? 'Steppes of Northern Caucasus' - that's both a narrower area as you want it (even narrower than your proposal), and refers to a steppe region, as that's what we're talking about here. South Russia includes deserts and a mountain range. How is that precise? So how can your stance be so uncompromising then, that it has to be 'South Russia' and my proposals won't be answered too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.133.23 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Sorry but Idon’t think I understand The logic here.
2. I don’t think it’s political either, it appears to be geographic, which I’m pretty sure means natural. Correct me if I’m wrong though since I’m not a native speaker.
3. I’m sorry for not responding to that one, so now I’ll respond to it: changing it to the north Caucasian plains is indeed very reasonable and I’ll support it since that’s what the source appears to say.

Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources don't have to be stuck to verbatim. Eg. when the steppe mentioned in the source actually has a name (that the scholars have agreed upon since the golden age of E. Britannica). I'm not a regular editor (mostly because of revert wars) but over these 15 years I have noticed the name P C steppe replacing other names in many articles. I understand what your point is, but the previously mentioned Cimmerian invasion is the most famous and the Cimmerians lived outside of S R region too. Same goes for most nomads who lived here. The rainforest tribes of Rondonia are tribes of the Amazon rainforest - I don't think such naming is misleading even if it really was the case that the raiders lived only in Northern Caucasus and not beyond.

When it comes to my insistence on naming the natural region in question, I think that is one of the main points here. In my lectures, I always take special care to elaborate this. Modern terms provide almost no addtional information, while connecting peoples with their environment, OTOH, provides deep understanding of the subject. These raiders were warrior nomads and it's the steppe that molded them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.133.23 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you help me with this article again? Out consensus keeps getting reverted with claims I'm revert warring without discussion (when we actually achieved consensus here) 95.178.192.84 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears the issue has fixed itself. See HistoryofIran's latest edit Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

But I've been here for a long time. I just despise Wikipedia's reputation-based economy because it leads to bad results and I refuse to get an account. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed your previous messages but none of them have been a welcome. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah wait, apparently I ignored the first one. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the point of replacing spaces with underscores in wikilinks?

What is the purpose of this edit, which you have done twice now? Underscores and spaces in wikilinks are intended to work the same. When I click on each of the links, they both work for me. Is it possible that you have some script or customization installed that breaks links with spaces when you click on them? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t work for me, see WP:HD § Section linking shenanigans Aaron Liu (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it. I see that it's a new bug. I expect that it will be fixed soon, because that is going to break a lot of links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Vector 2022 Boondoggle

I removed my comment as well as your reply to it from the page. Others were making my point for me and in a better way anyways. If you feel compelled to restore it, I'm not going to stop you. Cheers. Suwessi (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Select Wikidata fields that has a qualified equal to the subclass of something

For example, alpha beta and release candidate version are all subclasses of prerelease version. I would like to select all values that have the version type qualifier set to one of the subclasses of prerelease version. How do I do this? Take Template:Latest preview software release/Material Design for an example. I have tried both help desk and VPT. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you maybe looking for something like wikidata:Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples (#Subproperties_of_location_(P276))? A09 (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Can the SPARQL service be used on Wikipedia? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, inside templates with {{invoke}}, but not sure which Lua module is appropriate ... I suggest you ask someone on #wikimedia-discovery (IRC channel). A09 (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

So there isn’t a way to use other Wikipedia templates such as {{wikidata}} for this? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ohh, forgot that one! I shall be trouted :) IDK exact possibilities, but it would be worth the try. A09 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

ABA talk page

Hello! I have seen your edits on the talk page for Applied Behavioral Analysis and I feel you have made very fair and valid points. I wanted to ask you about your last post where you mentioned something about DRN? Could you elaborate on what that is? I am still unfamiliar with most Wikipedia discussions. Since this is a question of Wikipedia and not the article I thought I would ask here, so I hope that is alright. Also, I hope my points on the talk page were not out of line! Despite what other users may think, the last thing I would want is to come across as obstinate and confrontational! Thank you again! Barbarbarty (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! You could see WP:DRN for more information. Usually talk page acronyms are in the Wikipedia namespace so you can just search WP:ACRONYM for it. Happy editing! Aaron Liu (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I see, thank you! I am a bit cynical things can be resolved soon though, this discussion has already lasted the whole new year thus far! Phew! Barbarbarty (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, I have a general question. On the talk page for Applied Behavioral Analysis, one user has been particular in making accusations against me that I have been dishonest or have needed to “reflect” on my own biases, which is claimed to be the reason for my disagreement with this user. Is there anything I can do or appeal to in case things get out of hand? I must say I do not feel comfortable of being interrogated on my personal beliefs on Wikipedia. Barbarbarty (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

In case and only in case things get very out of hand you could file an WP:ANI report. However I don't think we have devolved to that stage yet Aaron Liu (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I have no plans of reporting anyone as of now, but I just wanted to know the options available. I agree things have gotten too testy and apologize for any part I played in that. It is indeed very exhausting. Barbarbarty (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ngandong tiger

Hello there, so you readded the part I deleted in the ngandong tiger page which was about the American lion.So I would like to tell you that the weight was absolutely wrong about the American lion, it was stated that it weighed around 420kg but in reality the weight was only 250-350kg, the 420kg weight was an outdated 2008 study, in 2009 the actual weight that is the latter one was calculated.So considering the 400kg weight of the ngandong tiger stated on the wiki page, the weight is not at all similar too.Anyway I would like to respectfully add that you or anyone in general should do a little research before changing someone else's edit as most of the time they are not speaking out of their mind and has definitely given some time to the edit. That being said I would like to thank you for giving your time to read this. And here's a link if you want further evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lion Razeangst (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Since there are lots of recent changes I usually just check the edit summary when patrolling. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The only voice of reason in a few too many threads of the V22 RFC. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For outstanding contributions pertaining to all things V2022, both on enwiki and off. Cessaune [talk] 11:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your comment on the close review!

Cessaune [talk] 03:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Glenn Dubin

Hi Aaron Liu. I am the COI editor for Glenn Dubin, and I recently posted an edit request here: Talk:Glenn_Dubin#Early_life,_Career,_and_Personal_life_sections. I noticed that in February you showed an interest in a previous edit request, so I am hoping you might like to help out with this one, too. It would be much appreciated if you can implement these relatively straightforward edits. Thanks. AM for Dubin (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I’ll take a look. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aaron Liu, I hope you’ll take a look at my response on the Glenn Dubin talk page. I would love to implement the rest of this edit request. Thank you again for your help! AM for Dubin (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting at TFD

Firstly, take a read of WP:Relist bias. It lays out some misses for users who aren't yet administrators (and does apply even at TFD where we allow non-administrators to close discussions).

Second, a discussion which has had a week or more of discussion and which has such participation as Template:Vital article definitely falls in the category of "leave open and in the old discussions until someone closes it" category, not "relist". Izno (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. However, I don't think the essay applies as the points haven't run their full course yet have gone stale, neither does it result in a delete, and I don't see your second point being mentioned anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let me be straight then: You should not have relisted that discussion. It was perfectly fine to leave in the old discussions category. Izno (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we revert the relisting? The discussion has already had a huge participation and does not need to take another week of editor's time. An admin could easily close it now, and further comments are not needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverting the relisting might add additional complexity, but an admin isn't strictly obligated to wait another week just because of the relist.

I'll take an unneeded relist over a bad close any day, so no hard feelings, Aaron. One additional thought for future closes, though: In any given situation, it's best to choose whether you want to act in a moderator role (e.g. relisting, closing, etc.) or a participant role (e.g. commenting with your opinions, !voting), and to then stick to it. Trying to do both can frequently land you in hot water (as many many editors have learned from experience), as anyone who dislikes your moderator actions can then point to your opinions as evidence of why you were biased/involved to argue that they should be undone.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb, I'll take an unneeded relist over a bad close any day, so no hard feelings is a false dichotomy in this situation. If "I don't feel comfortable closing the discussion" is relevant, then the third option among others is simply to wait for it to close like everyone else. The discussion, in the TFD case, remains visible on the main page, so there is no particular gain from relisting.

In general, there are enough admins patrolling TFD that, while generally appreciated, non admin closes aren't all that necessary. And especially not to relist a long discussion like this one, which really should simply have been closed instead by one of the half dozen admins around. IznoPublic (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ, I agree that it makes more work now than it resolves to relist it. I had planned to look at it as soon as could put my Arb hat down. IznoPublic (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jeffrey Koo Jr.

Hello, Aaron Liu. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jeffrey Koo Jr., a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

AV Logo

Hello @Aaron Liu! Thanks for signing my guestbook. I took your suggestion and removed the white BG from the logo, and it looks a lot better. Sadly, I couldn’t change it too .SVG, because when I tried to convert it, the quality was terrible. I do have to logo on my user page, in the form of a userbox. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I have noticed that you have two AV userboxes, one of which doesn't have the logo. You have both {{User:UBX/AntiVandal}} and {{user:Wesoree/Userboxes/AV}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Self-trout. I have removed the duplicate. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide

Sorry, i confused this article with Incels.is Trade (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Haha, no need to apologize, we all make a whoopsie sometimes. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove well cited sections

Please stop removing citations and changing the sense of the triboelectricity article. All statements need to be justified by secondary (if possible) or primary references. No article should rely just on the work of one group. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

For the lead, it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead. I have already agreed that they are primary sources and your sources are better for the underlying mechanics section. For the "boon and bane in industries" part, that is highly editorialized and should be in its own section as the lead is for s summary, unless you have a much better reason to keep it. I don't see how I have changed the meaning, but that may be because I did not understand it for the underlying mechanics section. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

User:DanCherek is right. It wasn't a typo, and your correction misgendered HiLo48. I meant that the thread about HiLo48 was not as bad as the thread about BHG, only pointless. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh, sorry about that. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Eva Andersson-Dubin

Hi Aaron Liu, we were in touch a few months ago regarding edits for Glenn Dubin, and I'm grateful for the assistance and input you had offered. I am working on updating his wife's page, Eva Andersson-Dubin, and would appreciate if you can take a look at my suggestions and the relevant exchange on my recent edit request. Thank you very much. AM for Dubin (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion: 👨‍💻

Hey mate, I was wondering if you might want to chime in on this since you were involved in the recently concluded discussion for its counterpart? Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, I actually saw that one but skipped it as I was undecided. I have responded to your argument though. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that bad nowiki formatting

I inadvertently searched text and replaced it with raw MediaWiki markup in the Visual editing mode, which added it inside nowiki markers. It was my first time trying to write markup inside the Visual mode. I realised what had happened and was meaning to undo it before publishing the edit, but after doing tons of searches-and-replacements after that in source mode—I completely forgot about the nowiki thing, hehe. After the fact, I was looking around for bright red template syntax errors and I missed the MediaWiki markup in plain text.

Thank you so much for fixing it! <3  —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I was just casually looking at the article lol. I also suggest that you use the old wikitext editor instead of the 2017 VE one; it loads a lot faster, has a syntax highlighting button, has CharInsert and just feels less clunkier to me. Curiously it uses many Monobook UI elements in menus, but that's the only drawback to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're telling me the old source editor is faster, then I'm definitely trying it out. All the visual mode additions to the 2017 source mode do seem clunkier to me in hindsight, but conversely I don't know if I'll remember Mediawiki formatting without the drop down, ehehe.  —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

In Special:Diff/1179064354, your edit summary seems to justify the opposite of the edit you made? Mix-up? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Aaaargh, I blame the paragraph source diff-er. Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I've come within a finger's twitch of blocking the wrong person based on misreading whether a diff added or removed... Also within a finger's twitch of blocking accounts as sox because I loaded the same diff twice. Shit happens. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick note on Template:Copyvio/core

Moved to Template talk:Copyvio § Redesign

Action Bronson

Hi. Regarding my edits on the aforementioned article, only his father is Albanian, so calling him an Albanian rapper is wrong. There is already the category American people of Albanian descent, which is precise. As for the grammar edit, the correct turn is known professionally, not professionally known (see Bebe Rexha, Ava Max for instance). And per MOS:ROLEBIO, only capacities his fame comes from are put in the lead and he is mostly known as a rapper and songwriter, chef, television producer and wrestler are secondary ones. So I kindly ask you to accept my edits and self-revert. Thank you. 2A02:85F:F0C0:B90A:C78:1DCA:1E0D:F417 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

For the category, I have also self-reverted and the category is now gone. You can view the article history.
For the adverb, both terms are grammatically correct and IMO "professionally known" flows much more straightforward like adjectives.
Thanks for taking the time for discuss. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point but in Wikipedia, we should follow the most regular Manual of Style when writing, and if you make a research, you'll see known professionally is much more used when person has a career name rather than their birth one. Anyways, another user already accepted my edit, thank you for your time for looking into it and replying. :) 2A02:85F:F0C0:B90A:C78:1DCA:1E0D:F417 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, your ROLEBIO edit didn't come before I was reviewing. Wikipedia does have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but it does not talk about the order of these words and it also says that most things not covered by consensus or style guides can remain different. I still believe that professionally known flows much better. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Still, personally I haven't seen it almost anywhere. Anyways, since it has been accepted, let's leave it as it is and if it's been reverted again by another editor, I will start a discussion in the talk page to make a consensus anew about the version that will be used. 2A02:85F:F0C0:B90A:C78:1DCA:1E0D:F417 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, though I doubt much people would participate in the order of 2 words lol. It's not a big deal and the article is still fine. If you want to know where it's used you can always search it up. Cheers! Aaron Liu (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

With the same logic, I can also provide this. Anyways, it's not a big deal as you already said so let's just leave it as it. 2A02:85F:F0C0:B90A:C78:1DCA:1E0D:F417 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Aaron Liu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Scripts++ accolades

Thank you

		The Scripting Barnstar
		For taking the initiative to get the latest issue of WP:Scripts++ out. Thank you for stepping up! –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 to the above, thanks for your work on this newsletter! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, what dooes one say when they’ve already said "no problem"? 😅 Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, based department?

Newsletters must flow, and flow them you have! I don't have the JS thing to give you a beer or a poptart or whatever or a Buttscratcher of Diligence on mobile but in my heart I mean one for you. Good work! jp×g🗯️ 09:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Aaron Liu!

Happy New Year!

Aaron Liu,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!
Sorry to be blunt but, have we met? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The Mind Electric

You only had to read my comment to realise that I wasn't in for an edit war, but a reasonable application of WP:LEAST would have satisfied my concerns. I cannot, nor would anybody else, see any benefit pointing a redirect to somewhere it is not presently mentioned. Add some content to your preferred target and I will be satisfied, the rest of the WP can tear its hair out over primary topic.

BTW your use of :R avoided double redirect/A2R is also incorrect. Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I said that I will add content, for which I meant that I would add the content soon. Sorry that I didn’t make that clear. I started on it before you left me this message and it’s in the article now.
I’m not sure that LEAST would apply here as people who search for that probably don’t expect an article about video games, but I agree that most redirects should have mentions, though I still maintain that changing the target was not a good solution.
How would the use of A2R be incorrect? The redirect originally redirected to the album page which has since been merged into the solo works section.
Why did you remove the category on my user talk page? I’d understand it partially if you swapped it with the category on my user page, but that was not what you did. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects to nowhere are no use. Doesn't matter whether they are videos, songs, pots or pans. I have removed the A2r because it is not correct - it is at the correct title for the song. I have added a default sort to make the redirect easier to find. I am happy as is. If you had added the info to the article first, none of this was necessary, my edit was correct at the time made and should not have been undone at THAT point.

I thought I'd added the redlink. If I had realised it was nothing to do with me, I would have left alone. Hope you are happy with this final result too. Cheers. Richhoncho (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

An existing article isn't nowhere, and such redirects have use as they are most likely the article the reader is looking for. A2Rs do not need to be alternative titles of the same work; the song would've and originally did redirect to the album, and if the album gets its own page then the redirect should redirect to that page instead. I don't see why it is not correct.
While I agree that I probably should've added the content first as there is no deadline, you didn't have to revert my edit either for the same reason at that point as I said "soon". Thanks, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Please can you explain how The Mind Electric, a song, is an alternative name for the concept album Hawaii: Part II. If you can then I have to agree your edit is correct.

A song can be directed to, as the text for R from song says, This is a redirect from a song title to a more general, relevant article such as an album, film or artist where the song is mentioned. Redirecting to the specific album or film in which the song appears is preferable to redirecting to the artist when possible.

Which pretty much nails where the redirect for the song should go and any reference to the album in the redirect as a misnaming is superfluous and incorrect. Richhoncho (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirecting to the specific album or film in which the song appears is preferable to redirecting to the artist when possible. So, the redirect should redirect to the album, which is currently a redirect. All A2R does is help avoiding double redirects by automatically alerting redirects that are no longer double redirects, which would be helpful to this page; i.e. we would update the page if the album got an article. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You are still mistaking the words, 'album' with 'song'- they are different things, apples and pears. Nowhere does A2R or R from song suggest in any way shape or form that if a specific article does not exist we should reference it in the redirect which nobody actually sees. It's an admin tag, nothing to do with the actual encyclopedia. The article the redirect directs to (should) supply that information.

A2R was originally created by the space guys who needed a way to describe (and stop) duplicate tags on minor stars etc which are named and numbered.

Why don't you at least have a look and see how other editors are using A2R instead of wasting our time on one redirect? Richhoncho (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how I’m mistaking album with song.

A2R was created for the purposes of “grouping” article redirects and automatically fixing 2Rs when their supposed target becomes an article; as far as I can see, its creation has virtually no relation to Wikiproject Space.

This A2R to the album satisfies both of the above, and letting it remain does no harm. However, removing it does, as the redirect will no longer automatically update if the album is created as an article. I think there is already consensus for song redirects to target to their album (or film, if applicable) whenever possible. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't tell the difference between an album and a song because you are trying to group them together which is conclusive proof that you are wrong. I have nothing more to say. I'll give you a day or so to try and make your point with another editor, but I am out of patience. I shall revert unless you can find substantial support for your vague opinions. Richhoncho (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

PS. So now you are proposing a change at the Village Pump? Richhoncho (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edits to The Jewish Question

Hello, I'm 223.140.151.49. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Jewish Question have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. 223.140.151.49 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@223.140.151.49 What? How? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Jewish Question. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 223.140.151.49 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Reverted by User:Ponyo, circa the year of our lord 00:13, 13 February 2024

18 January 2024 Revert

You reverted my edit in Perry High School shooting that removed Category:2024 suicides. I wanted to let you know that i removed it because its not specific. The shooting didn't kill itself, Dylan Butler did so i went to Dylans redirect page and added 2024 Suicides there. I'm going to remove it again if you would like to bring it up, take it to the talk page i guess. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Would you like to revert my edit yourself (with a link here, of course) or for me to self-revert? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, you seem to have made it. I'll be doing a dummy edit to link here. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

20 January 2024 revert

you reverted my edit that put Pedicide in the attack type for perry high school shooting. I understand you said it's included in school shooting but it's not. School shootings can refer to university shootings, using Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting as an example, pedicide is included with school shooting in the attack type which is why it should be kept in this article to be more specific. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm… that’s weird. But since other articles include it, I’ll self-revert. Thanks Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock requests

I don't think you realize what Deepfriedokra has been implying, so I'll be explicit: it's rarely a great idea for non-admins to comment on unblock requests and your comments aren't really helping the situation. Spicy (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Vector 2022

Hello, desist from continuing to make changes to Wikipedia's typography, in the mobile version you with new unnecessary forces https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vector_2022 190.219.223.169 (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no say in changes to Wikipedia's software. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Note

Hi Aaron.

I'm not going to go any further than this note, if for no other reason than my appreciation and respect for Xaosflux's (and others') opinion.

But I suggest that perhaps in the future, that you consider not WP:SNOW closing a discussion after several hours and only a few commenters, as it might be seen as inappropriate.

I hope you're having a good day. - jc37 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, this is the second time this week (and for my entire wikilife) I've received notes about SNOW closes.

I don't see a reason on not closing an unsupported proposal at its eleventh hour (pun not intended?), unfortunately. Would you like to elaborate?

A happy editing to you, too. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, we should always be cautious of Snow closing a discussion, as that tool is only there to avoid wasting the community's time with an obvious result. But there is the danger of biasing a discussion for "early commenters". For example, if someone had to work on that first day, they completely miss out on the discussion. There are reasons that discussions tend to have the durations they do.

Beyond that, there's a bit of a difference between XFD and an RFC. If one closes an XFD discussion early, that's 1/5 or 1/7 of the discussion's duration.

But closing an RfC discussion early is effectively cutting out 29+ days of potential discussion.

In this case, I thought several people had some interesting points, and I would have liked to have talked some of that out with them, and see if we might have found a workable version of the idea/proposal (Isaacl had some interesting comments, for example). But instead, because I opted to sleep before my next response, the discussion is closed.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not upset, it was just odd to see things short-circuited so quickly.

I hope this better clarifies. - jc37 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Establishing consensus requires patience. Wikipedia is a global community, and giving everyone the opportunity to weigh in and respond helps build confidence in evaluating the result. There is little down side in keeping a good-faith, active, productive discussion open for a few more days, while closing it after less than a day has passed will often lead to meta discussion about whether or not the discussion was prematurely halted, thus failing to reduce the amount of discussion in any case. On balance I think it's better to be somewhat conservative about closing discussions while they are still active. isaacl (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

You have made 13 edits at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I today, and 58 of the last 500. More than a few of your edits (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]) are entirely pointless. Please stop. --JBL (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Also [5] apparently you didn't read the linked detailed description before offering a correction about what the proposal entails? --JBL (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I did but missed that part. Thanks.

Thanks, but I've self-reverted [3] in the next minute, and I don't see why you might think [2] is pointless as the venue was under discussion at that time. I also intended for [4] to also ask for clarification on why it was compared to a revolution, but I see how it is vague. I will try to only include humor alongside a more useful reply. Also, that "bludgeoning" header is scary :) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be obvious that one person making 10% of the comments in a community discussion of this kind is inappropriate. Indeed this was already pointed out to you politely several days ago. I do not particularly care if you agree with me that many of your posts are of low quality as long as you exhibit the modest degree of self-control necessary to stop yourself from bludgeoning the discussion. --JBL (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

flag accuracy

thank you for your diligence in ensuring the incorrect flag is not used for the taiping heavenly kingdom page. I appreciate your commitment to flag accuracy. Angryman120344 (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

jargon

Regarding this edit: whether or not you're using the shortcut in text or the section name, you're still linking to a section that one person made up one day that wasn't based on any actual use. I think it's better not to propagate the use of jargon which is redundant anyway. The essential logic of an early closure is that the discussion has virtually no chance of reversing course, regardless of which direction that course lies. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that the principle was the same and maybe if I link to the section it's just a different type of snow. Thanks, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed criterion

Not sure what page to which you are referring. Using the edit box on the nomination page to create a request currently displays an edit notice. If editors are ignoring the text counselling having "several thousand edits", then I don't think adding more text is going to gain their attention. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking a notice for creating pages with titles matching a regexp, not on the nomination page. Is that possible? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Note I referred to the individual request page, that is, a page such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sample user, not the nomination page. There is already a group editnotice that is displayed for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and all subpages, which displays different messages under different circumstances. You can try using the form on the nomination page, or just try to create a new subpage manually, to see the current editnotice when a subpage is created. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird, I swear it wasn't there this noon. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I was thinking of a notice to show for users who can't create something. But apparently view source does not show the edit notice. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You can follow the link I provided to read about editnotices. They are on a separate page from the page to which they apply, and are shown only when editing a page. There is no current capability to keep a page from being created by non-extended-confirmed editors (and thus the open request on Phabricator), so a message for this scenario is moot unless this capability is implemented. Ultimately, though, if affected editors aren't reading the current advice in multiple places, including the editnotice, then I'm doubtful that a new message will lessen their confusion. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Yitzchok-Isaac (00:47, 26 March 2024)

Hi, I just finished my first try at editing an entry on jesus christ, but when I finished, I found no remnant of all that I wrote. Is there any way I can find out what happened to all that I wrote ? What did I do wrong, or incorrectly ? How can I 'save' any work I might do in the future from getting lost ? Thanking you in advance, I remain, Yitzchok-Isaac --Yitzchok-Isaac (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! You may have forgotten to click on the Publish changes button. If you want Wikipedia to automatically recover your unsaved changes, check Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing's "Enable the Edit Recovery feature" feature. Cheers! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Moshelillien (02:42, 26 March 2024)

can anyone see my ip when I make edits on my account? --Moshelillien (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is no, or at least that you don't have to worry about it!
Normal-ish people like you, me, and administrators can't. However, something our encyclopedia hates is wp:sockpuppetry, which is when an editor makes multiple accounts with the goal of unfairly influencing community decisions or evading a block. Thus, we have 53 wp:CheckUsers, who went through a vigorous selection process to make sure that they'll only use users' IP addresses to check if another user uses a suspiciously similar address. This can still only be checked if you've edited within the last wmf:data retention period, that is, the last 90 days. Rest assured, your private information is in safe hands. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Morwampuru on SOPHIA.org (13:48, 27 March 2024)

Hello,how can I create my own article? --Morwampuru (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 14:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sana khn on Talk:Writing (16:47, 27 March 2024)

How i start work ? Without investment --Sana khn (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)