User talk:ChromeGames

A page you started (XX (Mino album)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating XX (Mino album).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

A well-written article.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2018 postcard - info needed!
Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Some peaches for you!
 Sdkb has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious and typically non-allergenic fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for your contributions to Parasite! - Sdkb (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear ChromeGames923,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 16:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Changes to Chimpanzee Article
Some mobile user has been making what look to me like pointless edits to the Chimpanzee article. They delete large sections of text and then put them back, sometimes with a few blank spaces removed. In the edit summary it says they were approved by you. I don’t know what the policy is on these kinds of edits. IMO they are more disruptive than constructive because the user never leaves an edit summary and the way they edit you really have to search hard to find what, if anything was changed. I personally think such edits are a waste of time since there is no discernible change to the article and it wastes people’s time making sure it isn’t vandalism. But if such edits are considered constructive that’s fine, it isn’t worth an argument. I just wanted to double check and get your opinion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for bringing this up with me! Unfortunately I'm not sure I exactly understand what you mean when you say that they "delete large sections of text and then put them back", could you clarify what you see them doing? Is it possible that we are seeing different things when we view the ? (I tried turning off a few beta features but the diff page looks the same as before, unless I missed the setting.) To me, I see that the only changes are in citations, where there is a yellow (on desktop; red on mobile) highlight showing that the user removed a space before the closing curly braces, ie, " }}" -> "}}". I agree that there being no edit summary summary is not ideal, and that it does take some time looking for those small highlights where they removed spaces (although admittedly it would be much more difficult to find the change if the diff showed the entire paragraph being deleted and replaced, if that is how you are seeing it). In my case though, I found the edits to be neither particularly constructive nor disruptive so I accepted them as they did not seem to warrant a revert, but I'll gladly reconsider if the edits are problematic in any way. I'm also pinging  they accepted a similar edit not long before me, in case they have any input. ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 05:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don’t use a lot of new features, so that is probably the difference. It’s not important though, I just wanted to double check that you were carefully reviewing the changes which you obviously are. Thanks for the quick response. Happy editing! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I really appreciate you checking with me, I'm fairly new to this myself so I'm definitely looking to continue learning and improving! As for the diff, my screen looks like this image, except for the edits in question there were only yellow highlights on the left showing deleted spaces, and no blue highlights on the right since there were no additions. Best, ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyliion deleted due to copyvio
Hi ChromeGames923, just a courtesy note that I've deleted Hyliion due to substantial copyright violations going back to its foundational edit. It came up on my radar at Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikisanchez. Many of that editor's created articles have each sentence copy/pasted from the cited sources. I know you weren't involved in writing the content on that page, but I see you moved the article to a new title last week, so I figured I'd drop you a note to let you know. I hope all is well during these crazy times! All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I hope you're doing well too. That's unfortunate to hear, but I'm glad that you caught it and I appreciate you notifying me about it. Thanks, ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 04:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI , I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users. Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC) If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Season's greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello ChromeGames923: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, confermusearename (talk, contribs) Have a nice day! 21:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions
... should be short. Please take a look at Short description. The descriptions should be "no more than about 40 characters", with very exceptional circumstances needed to use more. Your descriptions at Discrete-time Markov chain and Continuous-time Markov chain were much too long.

Additionally, please have a think about the purpose of them. The point is that a reader using the search bar needs to determine either "yes, this is the topic I'm looking for", or "no it isn't", as quickly as possible (fractions of a second). It is of no help to write in technical language like "$$\mathbb{Z}$$-module homomorphism" for Additive map (where the lead should be understood by a strong secondary school student, but you wouldn't get to modules until university). Better is "mathematics concept", "property in mathematics", "type of mathematical function" etc. Someone knows immediately, "no, I'm not looking for maths" or "yes, I am". But if they're looking for a philosophy term, they'll go "uhh... um... I don't know what the description means, so maybe". That is, unless there are multiple articles on the same mathematical term (e.g. Identity (disambiguation)), the subject area is enough information.

It does not matter if Wikidata is the originator of the short description: you are responsible for adding it. We do need good short descriptions on the pages you've been editing, but I would recommend that you go back over some of the ones you have been rewriting and change them — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the helpful feedback and comments. I see that some of the short descriptions I added do not function very well for their indented purpose, and a more general idea of the topic would be more useful for disambiguating searches. I will try to do better in this regard and in keeping things shorter. Separately, I had been under the impression that Wikidata short descriptions would be displayed if Wikipedia does not have one; that is why I often added short descriptions that were shorter than the ones on Wikidata but not necessarily short enough to be 40 characters. After checking now it seems this is no longer the case as of a few years ago, so I will keep that in mind as well. ChromeGames (talk · contribs) 00:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and I'm glad the comments could be useful. For the record, this is also the first I'm learning of Wikidata short descriptions not appearing unless overriden, but either way a Wikipedia-hosted SD should comply with our principles. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)