WhaleFarm

Welcome!

Hi WhaleFarm! I noticed your contributions to Scheimpflug principle 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! — voidxor 14:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric John Swanson (December 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aplucas0703 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No evidence of notability on this individual. All sources are primary sources or are nothing more than a passing mention. Nothing here can show the significant coverage required to merit a Wikipedia article. Thank you for your interest in editing 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:Eric John Swanson 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.

aaronneallucas (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, WhaleFarm! 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! aaronneallucas (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric John Swanson (December 2)

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

Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Under the notable definition of acedemics, it would seem that CTO of a $1B company, published papers, inventor of nearly 100 patents, and teaching a graduate level engineering class for 13 years would meet the criteria. What am I missing? WhaleFarm (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric John Swanson (December 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it 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:Eric John Swanson 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.

MCE89 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Eric John Swanson has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eric John Swanson. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waveframe (December 13)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Page probably meets notability criteria but contains numerous spelling and basic grammatical errors that require correcting.

Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere.

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:Waveframe 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.

Cabrils (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric John Swanson (December 14)

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

Htanaungg (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waveframe (December 26)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Waveframe 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.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waveframe (January 13)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Still is WP:EXCESSDETAIL-- see comments on Talk page.

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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Waveframe 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.

Cabrils (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi WhaleFarm! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 19:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Edits to 'Transistor–transistor logic' contain text indicating citations but no actual citations have been added

Hey there, I noticed that you have made additions to the 'History' section of 'Transistor–transistor logic'. The text that you have added indicates a number of citations (note the numbers enclosed in square brackets) but none of the actual citations have been added. Was the text pasted from somewhere? If yes, please note that this might run afoul of rules regarding copyright. If no, please see this page for help on how to add citations. wneo (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. Sorry, I wrote that section, and retrived the real citations. I've been editing in word, and then pasting into WP. I guess I didn't get the reference format right. Any advice on a better workflow? Getting the citations right is a slow process. I'm trying to edit more in source mode.

I'll get it fixed. WhaleFarm (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I've applied a fix. I really appreciate you finding this. It would be great if you check my work. Any advice appreciated. WhaleFarm (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The citations look good now. Great work! wneo (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric John Swanson (March 4)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The topic might or might not be notable, but the content also needs improvement. The long list of patents shouldn't be here, and we should try to limit the number of primary sources.

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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eric John Swanson 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.

AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This was not a helpful review. I'm not sure you should continue to try to get this through the AfC gauntlet. We can move it to mainspace and see if anyone nominates it for deletion. It is usually easier to prevent something from getting deleted at AfD than it is to get it accepted at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I see the reviewer is blocked. I'm going to add another newspaper article I found, and look at trimming the lists. WhaleFarm (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that his reviewer responded to several hundred AfCs in the next day (and other days). Looks to be pure vandalism, I checked several, and the applicants do not seem aware that this is likely pure vandalism. WhaleFarm (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I gave contributed to the existing discussion concerning this reviewer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#AfC Reviewer Blocked as Sock (TheObsidianGriffon) ~Kvng (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi WhaleFarm. Thank you for your work on Vacuum tube characteristics. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please use proper mat forms for equations, see MOS:MATH.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Superregenerative receiver is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Superregenerative receiver is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of WhaleFarm -- WhaleFarm (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Review of ChatGPT

I noticed that you wrote a GA review for ChatGPT. Thank you for this. However, it was noticed that the review shows some LLM signs. There is a heightened degree of sensitivity with regard to LLMs for the GA-process, so whether or not you actually did use LLMs as part of the review, some do not look favorably on this, so in the future please try to "steer clear" of anything that might smell like a transformer. Just letting you know and thanks again for helping out. There is a mentorship request section if you would like guidance for GA reviewing as well. It has helped me a lot as I have made my first few tentative GA reviews. Pietrus1 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I use dictation, as my high speed typing days are behind me. The creative content is all mine, but the typing is not. Any advice on how to use dictation without smelling? My over-use of passive voice, and a lot of adjectives, probably don't help.

I would love to pick up a mentor on this, where do I look? The logistics of the first review were painful. WhaleFarm (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

On the first point, I think that is reasonable, but I would not be the best person to ask there. Maybe @HurricaneZeta can offer assistance. On the second point, mentorship is available at WP:Good article mentorship. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I can help with mentorship, though it would be better to start fresh on a new review. I commend you for wanting to review GANs, especially this one, but there is a process and someone said the review was improper (which is how I got alerted to this). WP:RGA and the others linked in its see also section are a good start. HurricaneZeta^C 14:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I started down the GA path as self tutoring into how all of the SP plumbing works. Looks like it bit off a big chunk. Do you recomend a good article to start? Maybe with less than 250 references?

there's a lot of material about what makes a GA, but little tutorial about the process. Any insight on expected protocol/ interaction with other editors would help. What is the normal interaction/colaboration. What would you think about mentoring me on the CIH article? It seems reasonable in scope. WhaleFarm (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is the template I have been using personally, hopefully it offers some clarity. Feel free to use it and/or modify it. You can also ping Zeta in each review by using the @ key and typing the username subsequently. It should appear in the dropdown.

Review Template

Previous Reviews/Comments:

*

Well-written:

(a) (prose)

Clarity:

*

Acronyms and technical terms

*

Conciseness

*

Spelling and Grammar

*

(b) (MoS)

Lead:

*

Layout:

*

Problematic Word Choice:

*

Special Considerations (for fiction or list):

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

(a) (references)

Links Functioning:

[X]:

Citation Formatting:

Quote Issues:

*

Divergence between reference and text:

[X]:

(b) (citations to reliable sources)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

(c) (original research)

Checking each reference:

[X]:

(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)

Earwig Results:

*

Manual Pass:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

(a) (major aspects)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

(b) (focus/scope)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Opinions presented as facts:

*

Facts presented as opinions:

*

Good/Bad Implications:

*

Participation in Arguments:

*

Potentially Contentious Labels:

*

Fringe Views:

*

Minor Points Given Undue Weight:

*

Competing Views Integrated Well:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Criteria Result: Undetermined

====Result====

Overall result: Undetermined

Pass/Fail and Explanation:

*

Pietrus1 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've had several interactions on the gpt article, I think there have been significant improvements. I've recommended a few more changes, I think it's a positive interaction.

At what point should I say enough and recomend GA, or for such a major article, should I pass the baton to another, more experienced reviewer? WhaleFarm (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You've made a lot of good recommendations. Keep in mind that things which are recommended, but are not required by the MoS/policy an be ignored by the nominator in theory. I would recommend that you reassess in-line with the GA (1...6) categories once changes have been made just to document everything.

I think I am pretty lenient, personally, so @@HurricaneZeta to offer more in-depth suggestions.

Pietrus1 (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I will also say that not failing a review (which could probably be justified on the basis of what you pointed out) and sticking with it is also something I support. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The review looks much better now! One thing I would suggest is to look through all the paragraphs - is everything cited? Are the cited sources reliable? Some scripts make this easier: User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages.js adds a button that highlights passages that are not supported by sources, and User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen and User:Headbomb/unreliable.js highlight citations based on their reliability. If there are any issues with that, you should raise it at the nomination.

GA only requires compliance with five MOS sections, which are MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, MOS:FICTION (which doesn't apply here), and MOS:EMBED. So don't feel overwhelmed, as these are simple and pretty intuitive. Since it's a large article, my opinion is that you should leave a final opinion endorsing the nomination once you're satisfied it meets all the criteria, and then request a second opinion. HurricaneZeta^C 16:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I started down the GA path as self tutoring into how all of the SP plumbing works. Looks like it bit off a big chunk. Do you recomend a good article to start? Maybe with less than 250 references?

there's a lot of material about what makes a GA, but little tutorial about the process. Any insight on expected protocol/ interaction with other editors would help. What is the normal interaction/colaboration. What would you think about mentoring me on the CIH article? It seems reasonable in scope. WhaleFarm (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Superregenerative receiver is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Superregenerative receiver is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pietrus1 -- Pietrus1 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Wanted to link you this

This userscript helps you identify duplicate references to merge together in article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences.js Pietrus1 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is NBER working paper.The discussion is about the topic ChatGPT. Thank you. --Uhoj (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Superregenerative receiver has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Superregenerative receiver has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pietrus1 -- Pietrus1 (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of 12-channel carrier system for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 12-channel carrier system, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12-channel carrier system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)