Hi Electricmemory! I noticed your contributions 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! GoldRomean (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! Electricmemory (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Electricmemory! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. EoRdE6^(Talk) 03:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6 I'm guessing I misread what it actually said. If it said the correct thing then my fault. I assumed it didn't.Electricmemory (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR applies regardless of whether your edit right or wrong so just be careful EoRdE6^(Talk) 03:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it okay, my fault, you can stop now Electricmemory (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I didn’t ever edit anything I only fix the 2 incidents that happened on January 28 because it was mentioned twice. Thanks you for your concerns. AVA Navigate (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AVA Navigate Huh? Electricmemory (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2025 Aviation it mentioned me for a non-constructive edit from ivebeenhacked and also mention your name and it sent me here when I wanted to (talk) AVA Navigate (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways I meant to be talking to ivebeenhacked I guess. AVA Navigate (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zhuhai Jinwan Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanbao Township. 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) 07:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Electricmemory (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Electricmemory, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Izaan Qureshi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Would not requre a fundamental rewrite. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electricmemory, given your short tenure with this account, you may want to dial back the lectures to long-term editors on how to edit effectively.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is this in reference to? Electricmemory (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire conversation at User talk:Cannolis.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning to lecture anyone. Electricmemory (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You templated them and then proceeded to lecture them on how to patrol vandalism and warn others. You also stated in that conversation that you have a history of your reports at AIV being declined because you hadn't left enough warnings, despite the fact that you have only actually ever made two reports to AIV with this account, neither of which have even been actioned as of the time I'm writing this. If this is some sort of clean start, you need to slow down.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my mistake. I'm sorry. Electricmemory (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to second this, as I'm also a longtime editor who doesn't appreciate being lectured to by a newbie either. There's no rule that disabling categories on draft pages is mandatory while removing them outright is forbidden — they're both valid responses, and are both useful in different circumstances.

For one thing, the kind of newbies who don't understand that drafts aren't allowed to be in categories quite frequently also didn't put the categories where categories are supposed to be — drafts often have their categories placed somewhere in the middle instead of at the end, or in multiple different places within the article (e.g. I frequently come across drafts where somebody used something like ==[[Category:Biography]]==, ==[[Category:Career]]== or ==[[Category:Personal life]]== as the section headers).

Or they place drafts in redlinked categories that don't even exist at all, or in categories that the page wouldn't belong in even if it were a finished article (e.g. filing a musician directly in Category:Music) — but those always have to be removed rather than disabled, because if the page gets moved with a bad category on it then I'm still going to have to come in for another round of category cleanup again in the future. So even if I'm just disabling categories, I still have to remove some regardless, because a bad category like that needs to come off now rather than waiting for me to have to make a return visit to the same page days or weeks later, so I would have to take even more extra time to assess whether each individual category needs to be removed or just disabled.

So removing categories just entails hitting a few minus signs in HotCat, while disabling categories requires reviewing each individual category and then searching through the page to find it, which means that just disabling categories can take up to five or six times longer than just removing them. Sure, it doesn't seem like that much of a burden to take the extra time if you're just thinking about the one or two drafts you saw — but the thing you need to understand is that because the reports for categorized draft and user pages only run once per week, I have to clean up several hundred of them at a time, meaning that it's already a two or three hour job as it is, and would become a ten to twenty hour job if I did it the longer way. But needless to say, I don't have a responsibility to devote that much time to it, and am entitled to get it done the quicker way.

Sure, if you come across one categorized draft in the process of other editing, then feel free to just disable the categories, because the little bit of extra time involved won't be an excessive burden on your time — but when I'm having to deal with a batch of hundreds of categorized drafts all at once, investing that same little bit of extra time on every page in the entire batch would add up to an extreme burden on my time. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat Unfortunately I have to disagree (and agree with everything Marbe166 said) because no matter how much time it takes, what you are doing still does effectively amount to vandalism. I have the right to say that and the right to say that you're putting too much emphasis on how much time it takes you and not enough emphasis on how detrimental it is to others. The mere fact it takes a long time to complete does not excuse doing it in an improper manner. Electricmemory (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is simply no rule that disabling categories on drafts is mandatory while removal is forbidden, so I absolutely don't accept that it's an "improper manner" at all. It does not effectively "amount to vandalism", while conversely putting drafts into categories in the first place does amount (not just effectively, but actually) to disruption — minor disruption that doesn't immediately merit punishment at first, granted, but becoming more serious if the page returns to categories (as happens not infrequently) a second, third or fourth time.

There's also nothing detrimental about the straight-up removal of redlinked categories that don't exist, or incorrect categories that the page wouldn't belong in even if it were in mainspace, and there's no argument to be had that such kludge should be left on a draft just because the creator put it there. The only argument anybody's ever tried to give me in favour of not worrying about that kind of stuff is that "the AFC reviewers are competent enough to catch that when they approve the draft" — but drafts frequently get arbitrarily moved into mainspace by their creators or other non-reviewer editors without waiting for AFC review, or have merely-disabled categories undisabled to put the draft back into the same categories. So such categories have to come off the page immediately, not just deferred for future removal, because they're just going to turn into further rounds of repeat cleanup.

And as for the time argument, that's a double-edged sword that doesn't cut the way you think — because if you're only concerned with the minor inconvenience to you on one page, and don't care at all about the size of job left behind for other people who have to deal with the cleanup across hundreds of pages, then it's not so clear that I'm the person in the equation who's being "uncollaborative" or "detrimental".

But I simply don't accept the argument that it's "improper" to remove categories from drafts instead of merely disabling them, and I don't accept the argument that having some concern for the amount of time I have to spend on a necessary maintenance task, instead of willingly making it an all-day job, makes me any kind of bad guy. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd share the report you're using I'd work on it myself. Electricmemory (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports#Categories Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Probably easier just to nuke all the COI edits. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 I was already halfway asleep when I came across that mess, I didn't wish to nuke something I wasn't certain about. Thanks for handling it yourself :) Electricmemory (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Electricmemory! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Userpage question, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darrell Wallace. 162 etc. (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Electricmemory! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]