User talk:Skarz: Difference between revisions

Old notices from 2008 – 2012 have been moved to User talk:Skarz/Archive 1

Thanks for your contributions to ExploitDB. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit your draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. C F A 💬 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Security Onion, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to ExploitDB2. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and this article was already draftified. Please move the original draft back to mainspace if you believe it is ready for publishing..
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit your draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. C F A 💬 01:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Botnet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired. 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) 17:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thomas Goodrich, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “Thomas Goodrich“.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cathy Cleaver Ruse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in her own right.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article’s talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ExploitDB2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “ExploitDB2“.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Skarz,

It is our pleasure to invite you to join a study at the University of Minnesota! The objective of the study is to understand how large language models (LLMs) impact the collaborative knowledge production process, by investigating knowledge contributors’ interactions with LLMs in practice.

If you have used LLMs (e.g., GPT, Llama, Claude…) in the process of contributing to Wikipedia (eg. grammar check, finding resources, writing scripts…), we’d love to join the study! You will be engaging in a 45-60 min interview, talking and reflecting about your experience with Wikipedia and your perception/usage of LLMs in Wikipedia. Your valuable input will not only help us understand practical ways to incorporate LLMs into the knowledge production process, but also help us generate guardrails about these practices. All participation would be anonymous.

In addition, if you know any editor who may have used LLMs during their edits, we highly appreciate it if you could share their contact with us, as we can reach out to them.

To learn more, please feel free to start a chat with me in email or take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes or direcly sign up: https://umn.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bqIjhNRg9Zqsuvs

Thank you so much for your time and consideration!

All the best,
LLMs and knowledge production Research Team
Phoebezz22 (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Security Onion Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —B-bot (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Security Onion Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —B-bot (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 40th Coastal Defense Brigade (Ukraine), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic title error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check ReFill’s output – ReFill is not perfect, and never will be. You are responsible for every edit that ReFill 2 suggests so you must take the time to inspect every citation that this tool creates and fix anything that isn’t quite right. Do not make work for other editors to clean up. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you referring to? skarz (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw a “notification”, saying that my [User:] name was mentioned in an edit comment dated “Revision as of 12:44, 2 August 2025” (for an edit to the article “Federal Prison Camp, Bryan“).

As you may know, it is sometimes customary and appropriate (when quoting something) to deal with an instance of a mistake — such as a TYPO — by leaving the original mistake in place, and to follow it by an instance of the word “[‍sic‍]” — (typically parenthesized or surrounded by square brackets).

If we are not going to leave the other TYPO in place — [“as is”] — in the “quote” field of the “{{cite web}}” template instance in the “ref” tag for what is now footnote number [19] in the article Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, (and it is currently the only footnote in that article having “Mike Bedigan” as the value of its “| author = ” field), then such a change would be “a new one on me”. That is, a first time to try to “explain” a TYPO in a “quote” field of a footnote [other than in a comment in the wikitext, — which is usually not displayed, except during a “view source” or when editing].

Hence, if such a change — i.e., modifying the footnote to “explain” the TYPO — is ‘at least’ being *considered* — (and it sounds like you would recommend that) — then perhaps it would be appropriate to try to reach some *consensus* (either here, or maybe on the “Talk:” page” for the article about “Federal Prison Camp, Bryan“) …before actually beginning any laparoscopic ‘surgery’ on the “ref” tag for that footnote.

If my comments are already too long winded for you, then you are welcome to make your own suggestions (perhaps here, or perhaps on the “Talk:” page” for that article). You might want to present or ‘explain’ some idea[s] for changes ‘with or without’ first reading my very unfinished “rough draft” shown in the subsection below.

I tried to present my thoughts about how to accomplish — using wikitext — such a fix-up to a “quote” field that still has one TYPO. I am aware that doing it right might require some expert knowledge of certain wikitext “features” that I do not — (“yet”?) — know much about. If so, then the edit might have to be done by some other editor, or else I might have to learn more, before attempting that edit.

However, maybe it would be better (first) to see what your comments are (if any) on what I have said “so far”. (Hence the logic behind putting these “comments” here, on this “Talk:” page … for now, at least … instead of somewhere else.)

Somehow modify the “quote” field in the “{{cite web}}” template instance — “OR” some other part of — the “ref” tag for what is now footnote number [19] in the article Federal Prison Camp, Bryan (and it is currently the only “ref” tag in that article having “Mike Bedigan” as the value of its “| author = ” field) .

The idea of (how to word) the change — (how to explain things clearly, and minimize misunderstanding) — would be a new one on me. I am not familiar with the existing guidelines [if any] for how to “correct” — and explain — a TYPO in a “quote” field.

The ‘solution’ might involve [modifying that “quote” field as follows:]

• adding “(sic)”, after the instance of the year “2023” that comes right after “December 29”, (the one that used to say “3032” has already been fixed); and
• also adding, somewhere — (maybe near the end?) — an explanation saying [something like]
  

  (ed Note: the instance of “(sic)” in this “quote” field is a TYPO, and it probably should say “2032”, instead of the incorrect year — “2023” — that was in the original.)

  …which is way longer than just a “petite” little instance of the word “(sic)” — (usually in parens or brackets) after one of those TYPOs where the mistake — and “what it should say” — are both pretty obvious.

I am aware that this “idea” might not be correctly following the “guidelines” — [if any] — for how to “correct” /slash “explain”, a TYPO in a “quote” field.

*** Thanks for listening. *** — Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr skarz (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]