User talk:Noggo

HVAC and Plumbing editorial help needed
The groups of articles related to HVAC and to Plumbing have been badly in need of cleanup and organization. I have made some modest improvements over time, and have suggested others in various Talk pages, but am not up to the task of doing this single-handed. Judging from your recent contributions, you seem to have the writing and organizational skills, as well as the technical knowledge to help with this effort. I encourage you to continue with these improvements; perhaps we can work in tandem to improve Wikipedia coverage of these important topics. Reify-tech (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * [begin copy&paste from User talk:Reify-tech. Discussion continues on his talk page]


 * Hi, thanks for leaving a comment on my user talk page. Yes, I'm actually planning to go through the articles in the category "Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning" since the topic is very interesting to me. I'm not a true expert in that particular field, however I do have quite a few years of other technical experience, namely in electrical engineering and electronics. I can try looking into the category "Plumbing" as well, but I might be limited to correcting typos, style, etc. there. My plan is this: I check which articles have an importance-rating above "low" and try to improve what I can there. For things that are beyond my knowledge, I'll probably leave a "clarify", "citation needed", "why", etc. in the article and check back later if someone else contributed. It is a continuous process and will probably never be really finished ;-) Noggo (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. You seem to have the right combination of technical knowledge, organizational skills, and clear writing ability for the task.  I'll keep an eye on things, add my own edits, help fend off vandals and spammers, and perhaps lend some editorial advice from time to time.  I have a broad technical background with extensive editing experience, and I edit across a wide and eclectic range of articles.  I've flagged some problems with the HVAC articles and tried to fix up some things in the past, but didn't find any editorial partners to work with.  I'll be happy to let you take the lead, and to be a sounding board and source for ideas on how to reorganize things, as well as pitching in with some of the actual editing.


 * I think I'll start by trying to find an info bar template for HVAC, though past searches have turned up nothing. If one still doesn't exist, I'll create one, as a framework for keeping track of the HVAC related articles.  As you may have noticed, there is some overlapping coverage of the same topics in different articles, as well as apparent gaps in coverage.  Gathering a list of all the HVAC related articles will make it easier to figure out what's going on, and how to organize the mass of information that already exists.  Reify-tech (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * [end copy&paste]


 * It would be better not to remove the annotations in the "See also" sections, such as in your recent edit to Humidifier. Actually, MOS:SEEALSO recommends adding annotations to entries which are not immediately obvious. Otherwise,  your edits have generally improved the coherence  and clarity of the HVAC articles. I've been busy elsewhere, but have continued to update the Template:HVAC as I discover more-obscure articles related to the topic.  Reify-tech (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. I wasn't aware of that. To me, it just looked odd to have an explanation there. My thought was "that's what the articles are there for". But you're right, it makes sense for the not-so-obvious entries. Noggo (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Mini-Data Center Data Vault Layout but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh 666 18:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Noggo (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing pending changes
Hey, I have noticed that you recently started reviewing pending changes. Unfortunately, I reviewed and had to correct quite a few of your decisions; so, I would like to ask you to be a little bit more careful and not just accept every pending change you review. For example, changes that involve claims but don't provide a source and are not supported by an existing source should not be accepted which is why I reverted the edits to The Chainsmokers, Nick Love and Ram Charan that you accepted. Another example is this edit to DeMarcus Cousins that you accepted where it would have taken you only a few seconds to check the cited NBA.com source to confirm that the previous height was correct. This edit to Karnataka should also have been reviewed more carefully and raised some suspicions given that there was a space missing. Some other changes that you accepted that have been reverted by other users include this edit to Delhi and this edit to Sergio Agüero.

I'm pretty sure you know this, but there is the option to revert pending changes. A useful tool for that is WP:TWINKLE which you might want to check out. Lastly, I want to say that I think it's great that you want to get involved in the pending changes review, but if you don't actually review the edits and just accept every change, it makes pending changes protection kind of pointless. Also, I'm sorry if this post was a bit harsh but there were just a few too many edits that you wrongfully accepted; so, I wanted to make you aware of this before you continue your pending changes reviews. Just look a bit closer or take a bit more time for each review, that is all. And if you're not sure, you also don't necessarily have to make a decision. Thank you. Felida97 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Felida97 and thanks for the detailed and constructive feedback. It is certainly much appreciated! Seems I followed the infos from WP:PC a bit too loosely. I focussed mainly on the question "is it obvious vandalism or not?", not every time on "is the new information actually correct?" - which, as I understand, isn't really the responsibility of the reviewer. As WP:PC says: " The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content. ... Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the correctness of the edit." But I'll try to be more careful in the future. As you probably noticed: I'm quite new to the process. Thanks again! Noggo (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. As you correctly quoted, an edit should not be accepted if it conflicts with the biographies of living persons policy. The three core content policies as listed there are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research and most of the edits above that you accepted (and I reverted) did not comply with those policies. So pending changes reviewers should check to ensure edits don't contain such violations of the policy on living people. You're right, "acceptance [...] is not an endorsement of the correctness of the edit", but it "indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above" (WP:PC). As you are aware what WP:PC says, maybe ask the question "is it vandalism or any other kind of violation" instead of just whether it's obvious vandalism or not. I would say that besides vandalism, "unsourced claim" or "addition of unsourced content" is probably the most common reason when reverting pending changes. The good news is that you will probably develop a sense for the policies over time. Something that helped a lot was looking at the advanced review log to see what kind of edits other reviewers accept and what kind of edits get reverted (all entries with "(TW)" are reverts). Thank you for agreeing to be more careful; just don't be afraid to revert certain edits. Felida97 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)