User talk:Nightwalker-87/Archive 1

Barnstar honor

First of all I didn't expect that. Thanks for your kind words. I'm also pleased to work together with you and make those pages higher-value for the public. Beside the barnstar honor I have to ask you why did you add the Guam territory plus the Northern Mariana Islands on the list of LTE networks under the Americas section and Northern Mariana Islands on the list UMTS networks under Oceania section? Those operators are mentioned on the list of mobile network operators of the Asia Pacific region so I think they should be moved on the list of LTE networks to the Oceania section. MrCellular (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you also for the kind response. :-)
Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are US overseas territories and have adopted the US band plan and are (geopolitically) connected to the US (as well as the US-Virgin-Islands in the Carribean). Their mobile spectrum has even been allocated through various FCC spectrum auctions in the US (for example they are listed as Regional Economic Area (REAG) "Pacific" or have own Cellular Market Areas (CMA)) Your argument that both belong to the Asia-Pacific Region and that the operators are listed under the "Oceania" elsewhere on wiki is of course also correct.
Anyway because of the strong connection through combined spectrum management (through the FCC and outside of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity APT) I think we should keep them as part of the "Americas" section. I tried to make this more clearly by naming the corresponding subsection "North America (USA, > US Territories < & Canada) (FCC band plan)". Additionally I would like to suggest to add a short note at the bottom of the "Oceania" section, that refers to the issue and maybe even re-directs to the specific entries in the America / US-section (Ref-Link). This would solve the issue and include your request. What do you think about this idea? Thx for pointing to this issue. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I still don’t get. Woudn’t it be easier to move the operator in list of UMTS networks from the Ocean section to the Americas section? MrCellular (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh... Yes, of course! We could even introduce an "US&Territories"-subsection there to have everything cleared up. I never thought about that... *rolleyes* Sry. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I think we don’t need to get that far because there aren't much lines. MrCellular (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Prod

Your argument may or may not be correct, but WP has many lists that can never be complete--I suggest you use AfD, because the wider community should have a chance to discuss & decide this. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I also didn’t expect that. (Besides the barnstar honor) I was about to delete my so far collected research after I saw the banner. No I have to proceed with my research… :-D MrCellular (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've re-nominated the article(s) for deletion (this time in a correct way, according to the wiki rules) and extended the proposal text for the delete. @MrCellular. It's NOT the List of UMTS networks I marked, so don't be bothered. The lists I marked were rarely edited in the recent years. As far as I can see you have made only two small edits each (HSDPA & HSUPA list) and didn't invest much effort so far. I decided to nominate these articles to initiate a discussion about them. We will see how the community thinks about this proposal. I would wait further research until a decision has been found by the community. I think the "List of UMTS networks" and the LTE network lists are much more worth to invest time and effort. I mean would you really want to start a network list for every standard and it's network extensions (GSM, HSCSD, AMPS, NMT, CDMAone, EVDO, etc. ...) I don't think... :-D Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess we both know the anwser of this nomination... :-D The proposal text looks even more "angry" than the first one, thought. I barely found news about the launch of HSUPA networks. So don't be afraid that I waste to much time and effort. MrCellular (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: EVDO Rev. A

Hello Nightwalker-87. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of EVDO Rev. A, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:CSD#R2 is for redirects out of the mainsoace into other spaces such as Draft or User. This redirect is within the mainspace.

Ok, but what would be the right concern for a adequate deletion request instead? Can you assist here? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The same applies to several other redirects you have speedied - I won't bother to notify you of each one. If you think they should be deleted, WP:RFD is the place to nominate them, but check out WP:RFD#HARMFUL. I see no reason for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

For the ones which you created and no-one else has edited, you could use {{db-author}}. Otherwise, nominate at WP:RFD (the only speedies for redirects are WP:CSD#R2 and WP:CSD#R3); but why do you want them deleted? The ones I have looked at so far seem to be useful, and redirects are very cheap. In particular, where the contents of a page have been merged to another, deleting the redirect would lose the whole previous history. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Contributing to the WikiProject Telecommunications, I try to find a way to simplify and concentrate information on wireless standards an technologies to make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for. I see that this field is very complex with a lot of technical terms, abbreviations which also result in different ways of spelling. I created a table here trying to organize the existing articles in this field (overview). I see that some redirects are needed, but do we need redirects to cover all possible ways of mis-spelling if we look at one single article? I don't see this beeing useful. This only creates more and more #REDIRECTS that have to be maintained when articles are changed. I agree that some abbreviations are really necessary as they have made it into common language, but who would for Example search for "Long-Term Evolution Time-Division Duplex" for example? Readers would rather search for "TD-LTE" instead. What is the appropiate wiki-policy on this topic? How can this problem be adressed and solved in a constructive way without inhibiting the future evolution of content? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

General guidance at WP:Redirect and WP:RFD#HARMFUL. You might be interested to read some of the discussions at WP:RFD. The general principle is to keep redirects that might conceivably help someone find the information they are looking for. I could imagine someone starting to type "Long-Term Evolution Time-Division Duplex" who did not know the abbreviation "TD-LTE", and if the redirect exists the search box would show it before the full name had been typed. (I just tried, and it popped up when I had got as far as "Long-Term Evolution T").

One particular reason for keeping redirects where they (or the original article) have been around for some time is that there may be incoming external links which would be broken. There is no way to check for those. That's the reason why WP:CSD#R3 is restricted to "recently created" links. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I think I have found an alternative way to archieve a common and logical structuring of the wiki articles in the field of wireless standards including existing redirects. The challenge will be to have every #REDIRECT linked to the right place within this structure. I'll continue to outline this structuring here including all available redirects in (( ... )). This will also include/require some article mergers in the future - especially around the topic UMTS. Some are already in proposal since January. I see that quite a bit of work is to be done here in favour of the reader. Thx for the clarifications and new ideas which resulted thereof. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Explaining your reasoning when reverting

Hi Nightwalker! When reverting the edits of others, please be sure to explain your reason for doing so. The why is a lot more important than the what in such edit summaries. Otherwise, you appear to be owning the article, or at a very minimum, not assuming the editor was acting in good faith. There's an exception to this when fixing vandalism; no explanation is needed when reverting obvious vandalism. Thanks, and happy editing! – voidxor 20:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't have used the revert-option here for only restoring a wiki-link together with additional minor formatting improvements. Not a big issue at all though. As I thanked you for the other edits you made together with this one I can hardly see a reason for assuming missing good faith or appreciation in this context. I don't see a problem here. Generally I share your point of view if there are greater changes, where I also feel that a good explanation is really necessary. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think that your good faith is missing; I'm telling you that others may interpret your actions that way if you continue to revert people without explanation. And no, you should definitely not have reintroduced the wikilink without reverting! It appears that you're trying to undo the edits of others without their knowledge. The whole point of revert notifications is to bring editors together to discuss the direction of an article, instead of a flyby editor (i.e. me) making a change and a watcher (i.e. you) silently undoing their work. Also, I find it interesting that I just gave you another opportunity to explain your reason for reintroducing the wikilink, and you still haven't explained why you reverted me. – voidxor 22:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, a "good explanation" is "really necessary" for every reversion except combating obvious vandalism. – voidxor 22:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason for reintroducing the wiki-link is that wiki-links in the column header of tables which are there for expanation, should not be removed. There is no "doubling" just because there are two tables.
The mentioning that I shouldn't have used the revert-option targeted solely the fact that I used the revert-function AND then added additional formatting improvements that were not part of your previous revert. This is a technical issue and not a personal (accusation of hiding content revert) issue. Reviewing your reaction, in the context that you have been on wikipedia for a long time, leaves me behind cluelessly without seeing any good faith in your attempt. I think you should know better. I've been contributing to wikipedia for quite a while spending time and adding content together with others. I found that contrary opinions are solved in a really smooth and friendly way here. Haven't seen an attempt like this one so far, which has no base really from my point of view, but heading in the wrong direction instead. Very, very sad... :-( Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever (rolls eyes at the melodrama). I figured from the get go that the duplicate-link exception for column headers was your reason (and thus that I'd made an error, per MOS:DUPLINK); I'm just trying to get you in the habit of saying so. No, I did not assume any bad faith on your part. Think about it. If I had, I would have immediately reverted your revert. In general, it'd be good etiquette to explain why you're reverting somebody. Why you are so resistant to that suggestion, I don't know, but it's not helpful to new editors, who are prone to feeling bitten by such things. – voidxor 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not resistant to suggestions especially not if they derive from wiki rules and are necessary to be adressed (in a reasonable way). I see that you strongly persist on this point, of which I took note of, but I didn't and still do not like is the way HOW you adressed the topic. Anyway I'll cut this conversation here from my point, as I feel both could have spent most of the time better in the sense of wikipedia in further improving articles than in a ping-pong discussion. I'd like to focus on articles again now. Thx for your understanding. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Long-Term Evolution (telecommunication)

I removed your AFD tag from this article since there does not appear to actually be an AFD. If you nominated it elsewhere please add the correct tag. Given that the article it redirects to, LTE (telecommunication), starts off "LTE (Long-Term Evolution , commonly marketed as 4G LTE)" this seems to me to be a reasonable redirect. Meters (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but what you might not have taken notice of is that Long Term Evolution and LTE are existing #REDIRECTs as well (together with some other examples). From my point of view it would be preferrable to keep these instead as they are more common. Can you assist with the right procedure for this request to have the issue adressed in a proper way? This would be great. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with having multiple redirects to the same article. This appears to me to be a viable redirect, and should be kept. Meters (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is/was if the redirect Long-Term Evolution (telecommunication) is useful, if redirects like Long Term Evolution exist. When using the article search function these titles for the serched topic should appear first compared to a very long title with a supplement. I'm not against redirects in general but consider them useful, but in a way the are also endless possibilities for introducing new redirects. Instead I thought it was more useful to focus on these which are likely to be addressed. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think a redirect should be deleted, propose it at the correct place, rather than at AFD. That's atWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. And please ensure that there is a valid reason to delete them. Please read WP:REDIR, particularly WP:R#HARMFUL, WP:R#DELETE and WP:R#KEEP. Meters (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll take that into consideration. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

HSOPA

I'm arguing against your AFD on this redirect Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HSOPA. This is clearly another valid redirect. In fact, the target of the redirect was moved there from this name after the technology was renamed. Please do not list useful redirects for deletion. Meters (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment on the previous topic. As the same topic is adressed at that place, the discussion should be concentrated there. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits (March 2016)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at High Speed Circuit Switched Data. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges.
This is a completely invalid speedy deletion request. You did not create the redirect, so you are not allowed to ask for speedy deletion as the author. Furthermore, it is entirely correct to redirect High Speed Circuit Switched Data to the section of the article that deals with that topic Circuit Switched Data#High Speed Circuit Switched Data (HSCSD). There is no possible justification for deleting this redirect. Please stop trying to delete valid redirects. Meters (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally adressed the wrong article here. Instead I aimed to adress this article name High-Speed Circuit-Switched Data. Anyway taking into consideration the other topics you adressed, it is desireable and mostly neccessary to preserve the edit history. For the latter this is the case as well. I'll take this point into consideration for further editing. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3GPP Long Term Evolution

WP:Common name only deals with an article title. It is not justification for deleting a redirect, particularly one that used to be the title of the target article. Meters (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And likely variations of titles (or valid redirects) such as 3GPP Long-Term Evolution are valid redirects too. Meters (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment at the topic "Long-Term Evolution (telecommunication)". As the same topic is adressed at that place, the discussion should be concentrated there. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of planned LTE networks page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long-Term Evolution Time-Division Duplex

And yet another invalid request for deletion. This one is a redirect resulting from an article that you recently merged. We do not delete such redirects since:

1. There may be links still pointing to the original title (as there are in this case).
2. We need to maintain the edit history of the contributions.
3. We may need to preserve the talk page (although not in this case).
4. It is a useful redirect. Meters (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

LTE timeline

Please do not blank pages, as you did to LTE timeline, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (DC HSUPA) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating DC HSUPA, Nightwalker-87! Wikipedia editor Dstone66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks - just modified to hit the specific section within that same article

To reply, leave a comment on Dstone66's talk page. Learn more about page curation.

Capitalization of Languages

Unlike German, the names of languages are always capitalized in English.[1][2] However, there is no need to change your edits: The cite web macro capitalizes the language anyway when the article is viewed, even where you changed it to lowercase. Drahtlos (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I know that, but believed that in this case the syntax of code for citing should always be written in small letters, yust like the rest of this formatting. - Well never mind, one should addict to the common formatting. Thx for the note. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!

Hi Nightwalker-87, please allow me to get in touch because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature here? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification. I have just checked out the project page and believe it is good idea. You have my support. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! --Gnom (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How to move

Articles are moved or renamed using the article move command, which may be under the more menu depending on your preferences and theme. Pasting the content of an article into one of its redirects (cut-and-paste move) loses attribution (the article history) so should not be done. Unfortunately, when the redirect has existing history, this mechanism cannot be used by most people, so there is a requested moves page. Uncontroversial moves will be made quickly, but might get reverted or even rejected if the admin feels it is debatable. Moves likely to be contested need to be discussed first. Lithopsian (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with page cleanup?

Hi User:Nightwalker-87, Am in COI on the Vonage page but reaching out to volunteers to help improve the page. Would you be able to take a look at the suggested edits I posted on the Vonage talk page? Really appreciate any help at all. Thanks! SStankevich (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets IPs of Dnywish

Hi, User:Nightwalker-87, could you report the following IPs as sockpuppetss because I am absolutely fed up of dealing with him.

• 72.85.24.48
• 2601:140:50D:5F25:2D1A:6BD5:5E13:CE46

Hi Joshuarshah. Thanks for reporting. We may hand that over to MrOllie though, who appears to have taken action on this topic already. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok np i'll hand over the 2 IP addresses to him. Thank You. Joshua Shah (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. Don't be annoyed. To be honest: Such people are simply idiots. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of 76.1 FM for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 76.1 FM is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/76.1 FM until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Several other radio frequency articles have also been nominated for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 3G article problems. Thank you. wizzito | say hello! 08:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Help with bio update?

Hi, I see you are a member of Wikiprojects Telecommunications. I’ve made some proposals to update the article about Walter De Brouwer, posted here Talk:Walter De Brouwer#Requested edits December 2022. I have a conflict of interest, so I am refraining from direct edits of the article. Could you possibly look at the proposals? Sincere thanks, Supereditor1991 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)