User talk:DefaultFree/Archives/2023

Category:Gender reveal wildfires has been nominated for deletion

Category:Gender reveal wildfires has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"Sniff test" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sniff test 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Sniff test until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sigforge?

I am quite sure that your revert was unjustified. First of all, I did not interact with their signature at all: the timestamp is separate from their signature, not to mention Wikipedia:SIGFORGE is about altering a signature to make it look like that of another user. Secondly, I was merely correcting the date; 22:09 does not correspond to any edit on the talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Context for any third parties reading this, your original WP:SIGFORGE edit is [1] and my revert is [2]. Modifying another's party's signature without the consent of that party is forgery, definitionally. DefaultFree (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not. Firstly, as the signatures guideline says things such as typing four tildes adds the time and date to your resulting signature, the signature is the part before the date and time and I did not modify that part. Forgery is also about using someone else's signature for something they did not say. Secondly, correcting the time of a comment... is very unrelated to forging if it is correct; are you trying to say the the time I was trying to restore is incorrect? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The timestamp is part of the signature. If I sign a document dated January 2, and you modify it to state January 1, you have forged my signature. I am not interested in warring over this, and am not reverting your improper revert at [3] without further input from WEI editors. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on the WEI talk page (where I have left a note about this), with the editors there, rather than on my user talk page. Thank you. DefaultFree (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: I maintain that this was an instance of WP:SIGFORGE, but am not interested in warring. If you want to discuss further there is Talk:Web_Environment_Integrity#Web_Environment_Integrity_API_is_not_a_"proposed_standard" which is more proximal to where the forgery occurred. DefaultFree (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Answering 3OR at Talk:Web_Environment_Integrity#Web_Environment_Integrity_API_is_not_a_"proposed_standard" Polyamorph (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Simple Sabotage Field Manual

Hello DefaultFree,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Simple Sabotage Field Manual for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Simple Sabotage Field Manual to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  06:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

When creating the redirect, I saw that Main->Wikipedia redirects were disallowed, but didn't realize the rule also prohibited Main->File. I guess it'll have to wait until someone writes out a proper article, rather than starting as a {{R with possibilities}}. Starter refs for anyone who wants to do so, and runs across this discussion when looking at article history: File:Simple Sabotage Field Manual.djvu [4] [5] [6] - probably enough to support a stub! DefaultFree (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi DefaultFree! I noticed your contributions to Google and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there some sort of program you're using to make all these edits? You seem to be making them at a rapid pace which indicates you may be using a bot. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. No automation, just a multi-tabbed web browser. I queued up a small batch of articles I planned to edit, prepared the changes, and submitted them in relatively quick succession. It was all done by hand, though. DefaultFree (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah alright. We have a policy regarding the use of bots requiring them to be approved first. See WP:BOTP. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 16:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mr Default Free

Hi Mr. DefaultFree,

I noticed that someone changed the name of a space company to Blue Origin Enterprises which I think that name is incorrect.

I am kind of a NASA geek/flight history nerd (lol) when it comes to proper spelling but the correct name is Blue Origin, LLC. This is the name givin for on all the articles I have read like crunchbase, Bloomberg etc. I am a CPA and the Enterprises name in an umbrella name for purposes other than its "official name". It's also only mentioned once. I would use Blue Origin LLC because most, If not all articles refer to Blue Origin as an LLC.

What are your thoughts on changing it back? 😀 American Diabetio (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Context for any other readers: [7] [8] [9] [10]. I'm not super involved with this article generally, but it was on my watchlist after I made an infobox change a few weeks ago. This user talk page gets auto-archived after a week, and Talk:Blue Origin may be a better location for this if we want a more extensive discussion with input from other editors (possibly including Ptrnext who made the first edit in the sequence).

My research indicates that the LP is the parent company, which fully owns the Florida LLC ([11]), and there are a few other auxillary organizations under the same umbrella. The WP:COMMONNAME is simply "Blue Origin", and the article is titled appropriately based on that. That still leaves the question of what to use in the lead sentence and infobox.

I looked for Wikipedia policy that might be relevant here. For the lead, there's MOS:ALTNAME. This gives guidelines on mentioning multiple names, but doesn't really seem to tell us how to pick one. Personally, I think the LP is most appropriate, as the entity at the root of the umbrella. Alternatively, I'd also be satisfied with paring the lead down to "Blue Origin" (the common name, without naming a specific legal entity) and keeping the corporate details for the infobox, or listing multiple, including at least the LP and the LLC.

For the infobox, {{Infobox company}}'s docs say |name= should be The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof. The full legal name of the company may be different from the common name used for the article title. There's also |trade_name= (Trade name, doing business as, d/b/a or fictitious business name under which a company presents itself to the public.) and |subsid= (The primary legally incorporated subsidiaries owned by the company, listed alphabetically). Based on this my suggestion for the infobox would be:

{{Infobox company
| name = Blue Origin Enterprises, L.P.
| trade_name = Blue Origin
| subsid = {{Unbulleted list|Blue Origin, LLC|Blue Origin Alabama, LLC|Blue Origin Federation, LLC|Blue Origin Florida, LLC|Blue Origin International, LLC|Blue Origin Management, LLC|Blue Origin Texas, LLC|Honeybee Robotics, LLC}}
}}

Thoughts? DefaultFree (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I know this company is an LLC and the its only subsidiary is Honeybee Robotics.

I think the umbrella name makes it too confusing for the readers because that is not its official name and not refered to in any other aspects exept one line in its private policy.

) American Diabetio (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I am open to other opinions though! American Diabetio (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal knowledge generally isn't suitable to support statements in Wikipedia; see WP:CK. Can you provide a WP:RS citation that states that Honeybee is a subsidiary of the LLC, and not of the LP? Blue Origin's own statements (see the privacy policy ref, e.g.) state that the LP is the parent and both the LLC and Honeybee are siblings. DefaultFree (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source that states that Honeybee is a child of the LP, for example: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0804559597 DefaultFree (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This link takes you to Blue origin LLC and it says under that name that the space company acquired honeybee robotics as a subsidiary. You have to scroll a little bit.

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/blue-origin American Diabetio (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Crunchbase is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; see WP:CRUNCHBASE. DefaultFree (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Here is another source. :)

https://www.timescall.com/2022/11/28/nasa-awards-longmonts-honeybee-robotics-17-7m-contract-for-mars-mission-work/ American Diabetio (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, now we've got multiple conflicting sources. My judgment is that Times Call is likely in error, and the State of Florida's Division of Corporations official website is likely correct, but that's just like, my opinion, man.  :)

There are some guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflicting sources for managing conflicting sources, if you'd like to introduce the Times Call reference into the article. DefaultFree (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

gotcha! I think for Florida and Alabama Etc. They are only for legal purposes but the only subsidiary that this company has is actually Honeybee Robotics which is under its official name of Blue Origin, LLC. American Diabetio (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)