User talk:TheMadScienFish23

Welcome!

Hello, TheMadScienFish23!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Renewal6 (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er, why?

Re: Special:Diff/1212979307 to IEEE 1355, which reverted my two previous edits... what was wrong with them? I thought they were improvements (obviously) and the edit summaries were accurate. But the revert has no edit comment at all, so I'm left wondering what the perceived problem is. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional detail. The first edit had two fairly limited goals:

Replace hyphens with the correct typographic symbols (minus signs in measurements, en-dashes in ranges like "760–900 nm"), and
Replace the meaningless "decibel" with dBm. Decibel is a relative measurement, so unless used in a relative context (as in "dynamic range is 10 dB", which is the ratio between lower and upper limits), you need to specify relative to what. Fortunately, it's not hard for someone who is familiar with the field to know that optical power figures are invariably in dBm, decibels relative to 1 mW, and that the levels specified make sense in those units. −12 dBm is 63 μW, a perfectly reasonable communication laser power.

I don't see how either of them fails to be a clear improvement.

The second edit was more ambitious.

The main goal was to fix the wording
If the previous symbol ends with a 0, Control is 010101 and Control* is 101010. If the previous symbol ends with a 1, Control is 101010, and Control* is 010101. NULL is Control Control*. FCC is Control Control. EOP_1 is Control Checksum (see below for def.). EOP_2 is Checksum Control. INIT is Control Control* Control* Control*.
which I found really confusing, so I broke it apart into a bulleted list, and generally reworked the surrounding wording to present the information in a more logical order. E.g. tightening "Data characters are made of two 4-bit symbols. Bits 0..3 are transmitted in the first symbol, 4..7 in the second." to "Normal data bytes are sent as two data characters, sent least significant nibble first."
Second, while studying the code, I came across a regular pattern in the code assignments and described it. I can imagine someone arguing that it's WP:OR, but I think the counter-argument is stronger that it's really just WP:CALC, pointing out a pattern which is indisputably present in the code assignments. I don't think I ascribed WP:UNDUE weight to the observation.

I could break it apart into four (or more) separate edits if that would make discussing one of them easier. But as I said, currently I'm in the dark as to what the problem is. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we should know why you think they are improvements, however I’m just sorry if the edits you made were proven to be constructive. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see your goals, and I now see your edits aligning with them. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we should have to see TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see why clearly the second edit was reverted, it had the tag of #possible vandalism. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t wanna quarrel, argue, or fight with you. So you should express your edits in a very constructive manner. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you express your edits in a constructive manner, we won’t have to argue or fight about it, we will have to resolve the problem. You currently appear to not want to respond yet 97.102.205.224. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(passing-by user) Was the IP's explanation, both in the edit summary and here, not constructive or sufficient? If it wasn't then point out why, being vague makes productive discussions harder.

Also you shouldn't blindly follow that tag (it says possible vandalism rather than certain vandalism for a reason), you are required to use your own judgment when reverting to see if the edits are actually unconstructive or vandalism. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:70C8:DCC8:4027:D6BB (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, well, my mentor, Sungodtemple, said to me while answering my question that patrolling recent edits with the tag #possible vandalism was useful. But I didn’t know that there is also a rule that I should look closely at the edits to determine if it is vandalism or unconstructive. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it more, the reason (this time) that it was flagged as possible vandalism is because it triggered an edit filter(log) that looks for repeated text added in an edit, which upon investigating more was the text "Control* Control* Control*", which the IP seems to have explained above.

I mean this (the article the IP edited) isn't a topic I'm familiar with, so I can't judge it either, I just thought I'd explain procedure a bit more. You are welcome to confirm with your mentor if what I said is true. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:70C8:DCC8:4027:D6BB (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 23:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possible vandalism is reason to investigate, but the reason it's a tag and not an enforced policy is that the rules are simplistic and prone to false positives. Please patrol the tagged edits, but look at them briefly to see if you concur with the not-too-bright bot.

For the moment, I've gone ahead and undone the revert while we continue with WP:BRD since it appears to have been a too-quick reflexive revert. Feel free to question or criticize any particular part of the edits, however.

@2804:F14:80C6:A301:70C8:DCC8:4027:D6BB: thanks for looking into what triggered the tag. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 00:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted why?

Why did you delete my edit now? It is correct information. Why are you controlling the public access to knowledge? Somebodyhomebody (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Somebodyhomebody. Your edits on Category:Jewish cults were reverted because it is supposed to list all articles in the category of Jewish Cults, you should not make edits to category articles as they are edited automatically when a article gets put in to that category. Please use your sandbox if you want to make test edits to Wikipedia. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that you could edit category pages only if you are adding a description of what the category represents. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Williams edit

Hi, I saw you reverted my recent edit on Serena Williams, with the reason that it did not appear constructive. The article is very long (currently 14,940 words), so I've been doing a lot of trimming to reduce the word count. If you have suggestions for ways I can condense and shorten the article that are different from the ways I've been doing it, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to proceed with improving the article length except the way I've been doing it, which is to trim unnecessary and less-important information, while still retaining all of Williams's major accomplishments, losses, injuries, etc. Also, there are many separate articles (linked from her page), that go into deeper detail about each year of her career, so even if I remove details from the main page, the information can still be accessed in those separate pages. Hopefully this clarifies the reasoning behind my edits. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on The Bamboos (funk band)

Hi. I noticed that you reverted some of my recent edits on the Bamboos (funk band), and I'd like to ask why this was done. My edits on this page that you reverted were;

Changing the name of the "members" section to "band members"
Splitting the members of the band into two categories, current members and former members
Wikilinked to some members of the band
Fixed a column issue on a previous edit
Added a large timeline of the members and their time in the band.
Simplified the information in the discography section to just the studio albums, because the more detailed information has been moved to a new page; The Bamboos discography.

None of my these edits were meant to be vandalism, and I think that they were quite constructive. How come they were reverted? I'm going to add my edits back for now, but you can revert them again if you have a good reason.

Thanks, SupremeLordBagel (talk to me) 00:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then! TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding! I wasn't expecting that to be resolved so quickly - what a pleasant surprise! Have a nice day. SupremeLordBagel (talk to me) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Yamla (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]