User talk:Chumpih

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 500 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

LastPass

Hi Chumpih. I wanted to check-in on if you had any input regarding Talk:LastPass#Poor_citations from a couple months ago regarding the heavy use of primary sources, and sources that are misrepresented, in the "Security incidents" section of the LastPass page. Since I have a conflict of interest, I'll rely on your impartiality, if you're willing to give my comments a close lookover. Thanks for all your participation so far. Best regards. AmyMarchiando (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources for "extremely"

Your revert was described as:

Rolling back to the less technical version. Discussion ongoing in Talk.

but my changes had nothing to do with "technical version". Johnjbarton (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. You're quite right. This was a mistake of mine - I was intending to revert several changes per discussion on talk:Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and just reverted your change only. I then went on to restore the desired version. Sorry about this. Chumpih ^t 21:13 and 21:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oli Dugmore (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CFA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Oli Dugmore and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

C F A 💬 04:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chumpih! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! C F A 💬 04:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Trade

Hello, Chumpih. Just wanted to let you know that I am looking into reviving formerly inactive WP:WikiProject Trade, where I found your name listed among a number of participants there. Glad to see you are still around! (All of the others have been inactive at Wikipedia for some time, so I've culled the list.) My interest stems from a series of discussions at Talk:Trade route, in particular maritime trade and ancient history of maritime trade, and I may try and create a task force for it. Anyway, I wanted to make sure you know about the revival effort, as you have some experience in this area which I don't, and I hope this reignites your interest in it. Please by all means do feel free to jump in at WP:TRADE as you see fit, or raise any issues at WT:TRADE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mathglot, thanks for the notice. As you can probably see, I'm by no means a shining beacon of productivity here, but yes, I'm still around. Do put your name above mine on the WP:TRADE page - it would be more appropriate. Ancient history of maritime trade sounds absolutely fascinating, but it's an area in which I know practically nothing beyond the the first few lines of Cargoes. I'll do as you suggest, and look for opportunities to contribute there. Good luck! Chumpih ^t 06:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for being much more reasonable than certain other Wikipedia editors. I did not even realize that Science of Computer Programming was peer-reviewed until I hovered over the link in your comment. I was considering abandoning my argument and leaving Wikipedia, since it seemed like an endless cycle of having my edits reverted. However, with a peer-reviewed source, it should be more difficult to claim that my sources are unreliable. My edit has been reverted again; however, I am more hopeful about being able to reach an end, where they have no more grounds to object upon. Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 65 (unsure how else to truncate your name to something pronounceable). Genuinely feel for you, having gone through similar 'Aaaaaargh' experiences. With a few exceptions, most editors are reasonable, but they're triggerable, and you'll very seldom find someone saying "ah, yes, I take your point and stand corrected, thanks for taking the time to make a clear case that adjusts my previously-stated opinion." I wish that would happen more often. Oh, and the 'Revert' is an effing big middle finger pointing skywards, that is overly easy to use. To be fair, the chap who reverted your more recent condribution did indeed go on to provide a detailed (if dubious) justification, which is far better than usual. There's a doctrine WP:BITEY which should provide protection for your clearly good-faith edits. As if!

One important lesson I learned is to never go ad hominem. Never say "you're acting in bad faith" or "you're all against me". Always stick to the topic in question, because that's far less triggering. Dismantle the argument, not the opponent.

Oh, and once you get more successful edits under your belt, you'll not care so much if some pr**k reverts you; you'll just move along. There's epic work to be done. And your skill will be appreciated, even if not so well credited. You'll know when you've done a good job.

A potential hazard: some delightful person will play the WP:BLUDGEON card, which is another effing insult. I've spent many hours struggling against that awful policy, to little avail. Chumpih ^t 16:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I owe you an explanation for reverting your section on Efficiency. For sure, I support the notion that the page should have words on Efficiency, as you have identified. And attempted to contribute. But there's a process here, and just bashing at it - just submitting when something is under debate - well, this is NOT the way. Get some consensus in the Talk page around a form of words. Use the {{tq}} template for your suggestions. If someone objects, factor in their specific objections, keep reasonable, and find the words that will work. WP:BRD is one approach, but it's not the only one. Chumpih ^t 20:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]