User talk:SoledadKabocha

Merge articles on Human interface device and USB human interface device class?
What do you think about encouraging some individual or group to merge the articles on Human interface device and USB human interface device class -- or at least make it clear why there should be 2 articles with each referencing the other appropriately?

I think the title of the merged article should be "Human interface device", but it should be clear that HID is a standard and secondarily devices that comply with that standard. I say this, because I recently purchased a television with USB ports that supposedly accept input from a USB HID keyboard. It failed to work with 2 different USB keyboards I have, apparently because they are not HID. I hadn't heard of HID before, and I think it would be reckless for me to attempt this.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no strong objections to a merge, but I'm not 100% sure it's necessarily the best idea either. If we decide on a merge, I think Human interface device should have a section specifically titled "USB human interface device class." I'd have to think about it a bit more. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581970418 your edit] to Track ballast may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , or less formally, "stoneblowing" . However, this technique is not as effective with fresh ballast, as the smaller stones tend to
 * Fixed the original issue. TODO: Figure out where/how I should be archiving such warnings. Also, did I read this quickly enough to avoid getting an email? If not the case, what could I do? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC) (+ 00:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC))
 * For the benefit of future visitors to my talk page: The problem is that I did not read the context carefully enough and therefore thought I was actually fixing an error in the parenthesis balance until BracketBot informed me otherwise. This is why I created antiBracketBot.js. (Note: My user scripts may contain any number of deprecated/broken practices and are not currently intended for public consumption.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

reply
&mdash; Cbbkr (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

unblock-auto
Shared IP address at University of (redacted) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've voided the template, because as far as I can tell, you're not currently blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Mega Man X2 (blank)
I was totally unaware of the page's existence and am not opposed to its deletion. Thanks.

~ Hibana (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to comment
Given your activity on the WP: Revert_only_when_necessary essay page, I'd invite your input on a recent edit of that essay that was, very ironically, instantly reverted. See the talk page if you wish to participate.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

1987 Chase Maryland collision
The use of British rail terms to describe an accident in the United States isn't proper. "Signal Passed at Danger" isn't even a term used on American railroads. We don't operate on UK railroad rule books. I invite you to go search the NTSB report for this incident as well as mediation cases from the National Mediation Board. They all quote the rule violations not terms from another country. Ksryengr (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of this issue occurring with any other article. As I said, my impression as a reader was that Wikipedia uses the terminology more broadly. I feel this needs wider discussion at the talk page of a WikiProject or Manual of Style page, but I wasn't able to find the right one on a quick glance (at the time of my original post).
 * By that logic, would all the non-British entries in Signal passed at danger need to be removed, or at least have their articles edited not to mention the term?
 * Or should the Signal passed at danger article not imply that the terminology is exclusively British?
 * And even if it's not the proper terminology for the crash in question, would a piped link be appropriate, to express that it's the closest concept that has a Wikipedia article? (I don't think we have articles on individual sections of the US rulebook, especially where the same concepts have other existing names.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) (+ 02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I should have looked at the banner on Talk:1987 Maryland train collision instead of searching blindly; the WikiProject is WP:WikiProject Trains. (I had mistakenly thought it would be called something like "Rail transport.")
 * One last thing: What geographically-neutral term would you use to describe the general concept of a "signal passed at danger"? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation category
OK, I accept that. 1 (year) is an convincing example. (I see from the category talk page that I'm not alone in being puzzled. It is the value-laden word 'unnecessary' that threw me].

I confess that I still don't really see the purpose of the category. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2015 (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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect categorization
Hi SoledadKabocha! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect that might interest you. Good faith!  Paine  20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please come and help...
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  17:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for EBU R128
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;EBU R128&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr X  ☎️ 01:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The title in question was formerly a redirect, which I categorized; I do not consider this substantial involvement, and I have no opinion to offer at present. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please reply to talkback
So you want a talkback instead of replyto. Well then. Pardon my usage of replyto. I don't click on respective user's talk pages before replying. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC); edited 22:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My edit notice says (emphasis new), "Instead of using, please continue any discussion where it was started." So that means I do not want either or  . I will consider clarifying this.
 * Please bear in mind that my replies to discussions, when they are not simple acknowledgments, tend to take "several" (~10) minutes to compose, as I am often long-winded/nitpicky. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replied to the original discussion and attempted to clarify my editnotice. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Template loops with User:SoledadKabocha/linkclassifier2.js
In User:SoledadKabocha/linkclassifier2.js, can you change Category:Template loop warnings to Category:Pages with template loops? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Template:R from subtitle" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_subtitle&redirect=no Template:R from subtitle] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.

(Notifying you as you participated in a previous discussion at Template talk:R from subtitle.) All the best. &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten [  meow ] 10:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)