governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
I mean, looking at the timestamps again, and with this rather clear clarification that this was prohibited good-faith behavior that additionally fed a troll, it's so unlikely that you'd continue or would repeat it on other pages that I can unblock right away. I also see that the first edits to their talk page were vandalism, butWP:UP#CMT exists and throwing an edit warring warning, of all possible messages, an edit warring warning! on their page in this fashion is absurdly beyond the options.~ ToBeFree (talk)06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
throwing an edit warring warning, of all possible messages, an edit warring warning!: I didn't even know that happened. When I enabled the script, the user was modifying warnings from other users (example), so I reverted their edits there. I don't care if people remove warnings from their userpage, and I don't recall ever edit warring those back in.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)07:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that one. It'sa script I created to revert vandals as soon as they edit a certain page; it's meant for abusers likeSalebot1 and others who rapidly vandalize articles or game permissions. I ran it on their talk page and went on to do other things, and it seems they just kept reverting over and over again. I realized this was happening for too long and shut it down. I also never realized this can be construed as edit warring (perWP:3RRNO), but I know better now and would not do that again, and remove that feature from my script just in case(and perhaps get rollback removed since it has clearly got me in trouble, justnot the way I think it would.)ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)06:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did think for a moment about revoking rollback but I don't think doing so would benefit either you or the encyclopedia. You would, however, have torequest approval for such automation outside of your own userspace and without manual supervision.~ ToBeFree (talk)06:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may like to use rollback as a server-sided, fast alternative to Twinkle's red VANDAL rollback link or similar things provided by other tools. For Twinkle, CSS for removing the red link is atUser:ToBeFree/common.css. Revoking the permission, uh ... from my side, not directly after the block and unblock today. It would feel too much like a forced revocation / delayed penalty. If you have thought about this for a few days and noone did it yet, feel free to ping/notify me about it again.~ ToBeFree (talk)07:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Ah, one thing regarding 3RRNO, this is a rare case where not even reverting a banned user would be justification enough, as even banned users are allowed to edit their own talk page, not just for filing an appeal but at least also for removing read messages. It may be arguable whether someone whose account is blocked is allowed to edit their IP's talk page and whether that depends on still having access to the account. But that's a rather academic discussion as what happened there was simply pointlessly disruptive independently of the edit warring policy.)~ ToBeFree (talk)06:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw your G4 speedy deletion nomination for this article. Is it possible to salt through speedy deletion, or does a salt request require a new AFD? Thank you,198.145.229.62 (talk)15:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, typically a new AfD, but you can ask an uninvolved admin to do it for you out-of-process. But do seeWP:NOSALT for why salting is a bad idea in general. If you create an account, you can add this page to your watchlist, and be instantly alerted when someone recreates it.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)15:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should've carefully inspected that IP user's edit inIterator. I wasn't aware that "Iterator" was correlated to computer programming, I just thought it was gonna be some random article about plants (judging by the name of the article) since I was quickly moving through edits in the Recent Changes, so I wasn't expecting to run into some edits which look arcane to me like "import std;". I thought the IP was implying "sexually transmitted disease" (you see what I mean, right?). That's why I reverted, although I was wrong. So yeah, I thought you deserved an explanation to my strange revert there.Hacked (Talk|Contribs)03:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the IP took exception tothis comment I made. I wasn't online yesterday and it was certainly something to log in today and see a whole ANI thread. Gotta update the counter on my userpage too. I'm happy to go in depth about the connections between Dinoboyaz and the IPs, but honestly I just suggest taking a look at Dinoboyaz's contribs and pattern of behavior and I think you'll see the resemblance too. He's been harassing me and Pi for a few years now, and it's even gotten intoharassing messages on my Commons talk page after one of his IPs caught a block for socking and proxy use.Trainsandotherthings (talk)18:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hello, I’m requesting that the recent edit removing Shari Kasman from the “More than a Beach” documentary description be restored. She is documented as appearing in the film as tour guide, so removing this factual information makes the article less accurate. Thank you.2001:4958:3412:E701:3D88:6F5:1610:467B (talk)01:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes that one, thanks for letting me know what this is about. I don't see why we should add that perWP:DUE, we generally don't name members of the cast when we mention a film or documentary from an unrelated article (exceptions may apply, of course.) Also, I recall that page had issues withWP:COI editing by multiple individuals, so can you please disclose if you are related to any of them in any way?ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)01:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hello, would you be able to clarify the reason for the AI-generated tag onEarth-bathing? I have confirmed that the information is consistent with the cited sources while being paraphrased so as to not violate copyright, aside from occasional direct quotes when necessary. I put care into consolidating the sourced information, and the references are not fictitious. Was there anything in particular that stood out to you as hallucinated, or would you have any suggestions for improvement? I'm interested in creating more articles, so any feedback would be appreciated, thanks!Alexander Patmos (talk)17:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I utilized ChatGPT to find additional sources and it reflected in the URL, and furthermore, I am aware that em dashes are a well-known indication of AI use, so I understand your logic in adding the tag and think your assessment was fair. I believe my sources are reliable and properly deployed. but I'll have to usedashes more sparingly going forward. Thanks for explaining!Alexander Patmos (talk)00:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than what the non-useful message above just detailed (–),curly quotes (“ and ” or ‘ and ’) usage are also an indicator (as it is not standard per theMOS). The most ostensible part in the article is the non-standard subheadings, just as an instance:A Short Treatise..., therapy and claim rationale, thesubheading in the article is not a standard subheading on Wikipedia and seems fabricated and along with knowledge cut-off dates are usually indicative of AI writing or known on Wikipedia asWP:LLM.182.187.148.47 (talk)15:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that there was a manual of style that addressedcurly quotes. I will ensure they are straight going forward, and try to referenceMOS for formatting.
Additionally, I was not aware that Wikipedia had a standard for subheadings. I have seen some pretty unique subheadings on Wikipedia, but I will have to be mindful to keep them more broad.
I draftified the article for being composed of LLM-generated text. I documented an example of LLM-style language and source-to-text integrity issues at the draft talk page.NicheSports (talk)02:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NicheSports I utilized ChatGPT to locate potential sources. (The only one I actually incorporated was Wikisource, but I now realize Wikisource is an inadequate source.)
I did not use AI to select material to incorporate nor was it used to consolidate my research; but in my final stages of drafting, I did utilize Grammarly's AI functionality to fine-tune the way I worded certain sections and improve the overall language.
I have rewritten the article (here:Draft:Earth-bathing) and refrained from using AI tools this time around. None of the new text is LLM-generated, none of the information is hallucinated, and all of the claims were taken from sources per my own research. --Alexander Patmos (talk)02:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being observative, and for so politely and deservedly delivering a boot to my backside. Well, the articleGrammatical tenses needs a great amount of work (I've hardly started on it); and once it's corrected and sourced and examples are provided, in its entirety it's likely to be simplistic or indigestible or, most likely, a strange mixture of both. I'm rather regretting my amiable responsehere; perhaps I should have just ignored the directive "improve page on Tenses". --Hoary (talk)08:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you mentioned at ANI that each temporary account can only be used by one person. as far as i can tell there's no ID verification or biometrics involved, so i'm not sure what you mean.~2025-31294-09 (talk)21:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to involve yourself if you don't want to but I saw you dealed with this user so thought I should let you know. Have a good day!Aesurias (talk)06:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop spilling them all over the place. I know you're just trying to explain things to people who are confused. But some things are need-to-know, some things are iykyk, and some things make it impossible for checkusers to take action if you say them out loud. I really do appreciate your work here and I apologize for the terseness of this message. But please, you've got to put a lid on it. --asilvering (talk)06:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t even do that. I reloaded the page because my thread wasn’t being posted, so maybe that has something to do with it. I didn’t mean to put that other stuff there.Chtosajn Ibn Zahri (talk)01:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for identifying and reporting copyright issues, such as onSyed A. B. Mahmud Hossain. One note: don't include your edit removing the text as part of the rev-del request. Once we remove the edit immediately prior to your edit, your edit shows no history, which means we've sufficiently protected the text. It's not a big deal to have one extra edit rev-del'd, but it can be avoided since it doesn't expose anything. — rsjaffe🗣️21:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There isno official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at thetalk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
Hello, ChildrenWillListen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.
@RFKTNG: It seems your other articleInvercargill Public Art Gallery is also generated using an LLM and suffers from similar issues. From a quick inspection: sources 6-7, 12-14 do not exist, source 1 fails verification forwhich contains more than 1,000 works across a range of media., source 5 fails verification fora Georgian/Neo-Georgian house completed in 1925 and designed by architect Cecil Wood, source 15 fails verification fortemporary exhibitions by local, national and international artists, and source 16 redirects me somewhere else (probably doesn't exist either.)ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)06:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened suggesting that I am the same editor as Molems. I would like to clarify that we are separate individuals. I first encountered him through Wikipedia, noticing his signature, which included a New Zealand flag. Over time, we developed a friendly rapport. He also recommended Timtrent as a helpful editor, and after reviewing some of his contributions, I awarded him a Barnstar.
There is no substantive evidence to support the claim that I am the same person as Molems. I respectfully request that this issue be reviewed and corrected.
I would also like to respectfully clarify that assuming an article is written by an LLM does not constitute sufficient evidence to support such a conclusion. I am fully willing to verify the sources forall of my articles and to replace any citations you believe are unsuitable.
@RFKTNG:Over time, we developed a friendly rapport.: Definitely not onwiki, since the only interaction you've had with them was[2]. Theyhave email disableddon't have an email set, so you couldn't have contacted them through that either.
I could rewrite all pages, and fix my mistakes, if that at least amends the issues, and also...Feel free to just fix my mistakes and let me know. That way I should actually improve. I would like to ask for your guidance. 🇳🇿Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿09:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for agreeing to fix your mistakes. I recommend doing the following:
1. Admit you've used AI
2. Assure us you won't use AI again, and follow through
3. Disclose any alternate accounts you may have used, including, but not limited to,Molems
This is neither here nor there for the Arbitration request, but I would just like to note until the community amends the Arbitration Policy, it is plainly appropriate that ArbCom isTo handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools in parallel to recall. And it is able to handle other sanctions which might help address the actual content issues in a way that recalling him alone would not do, making it (for me) a superior venue in this particular case (though I am not as convinced it needed to go from AN at this point in the process). Best,Barkeep49 (talk)04:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to use up my remaining words on a tangent, but if they receive enoughDMCA requests from copyright holders, they will have no choice, admin or no. Also, if you'll pardon me - I'm going to rant about the DMCA for a moment. It's a well documented practice that movie studios and game studios and what have you actively abuse this system to get negative commentary about their products removed from SNS posts. It's why I'm such a stickler for removing non-free plot summaries - I want regular people to be able to use screengrabs from our article while critiquing a show's writing without a mouse-shaped lawyer getting their video pulled from Youtube and their account blocked.
The WMF does not say the reason for bans, making it hard to say for certainwhy somebody got removed.User:Flooded with them hundreds for example - was their ban for repeatedly infringing copyright, or a different TOU abuse? WasUser:Messina? Goodness knows, and goodness knows we're not getting an answer out of a bunch of lawyers. (Not that I can blame them for that, actually - lawyers saying "we have copyright issues on our site!" is the legal equivalent of supergluing a giant "kick me" sign on your chest.)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸20:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but if they receive enough DMCA requests from copyright holders, they will have no choice, admin or no.: The WMFOffice account does occasionally remove Commons files on DMCA requests, but I have never seen them block anyone for that.
I've gone through the ban list when I was bored, and it seems a lot of the pre-2019 bans were generally made for political/personal reasons (WP:FRAMBAN of course being the eventual culmination of such behavior.) Other reasons (which are more common now) include posting or supporting the presence of CSAM, off-wiki harassment, compromising accounts, undisclosed paid editing, etc. The two accounts you mention are probably banned for some kind of harassment, especially considering that Flooded with them hundreds was ArbComBlocked right before that. As for copyright violations, I'm not aware of any, but I would definitely like to know if you happen to stumble across one.
I'm sure the WMF T&S receives thousands of global ban requests every month, usually from disgruntled users or LTAs. One even tries to "trick"certain users into acting like they'reviolating policy to try to get them global banned. They must be aware by now when to leave things to local administration (i.e. ArbCom) and when to take action, but I definitely echo your sentiment regarding the opacity of office actions, and I don't think they're extremely trustworthy either.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)21:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason we don't see blocks that often is because the community is more vigilant than the copyright holders - the WMF doesn't need to ban somebody if Commons already has, and I've never had an issue with Commons admins blocking editors who repeatedly upload non-free files or deleting said non-free files. And they, for legal liability reasons, I believe, don't go fishing the way they might (or might not) for other TOU issues. If they get a DMCA request for one file, they'll look at that one file and take whatever action their lawyers tell them. They won't click the upload tag and see if the editor's uploaded 50 other screenshots as "own work" are genuinely own work or not. They'll wait for another DMCA request - and the chances of another actionable request being sent, for the same editor, are pretty low. I, as an editor not affiliated with the WMF, can look. And I can, following the local processes, nominate it for deletion and ask a commons admins for a block.
Again, without the repetitive complaints from people who have standing to complain (there's a very good reason that many organizations only hear certain types of complaints from people who have standing - it probably helps guard against the people you listed in your last example!) the chance of an action is very low. But part of that balance comes from not forcing their hands. I'm not a risk taker, so I know that if I make them answer the question "is thing than a user has repeatedly done a TOU violation?", then I should only do that if I'm very certain of the answer. And okay with them nuking said article. And editor. Because if they say "yes", even privately (I respect SFR immensely - but why should they think WMF-Arbcom communications are guaranteed to be private now?), does that jeopardize their status as a publisher? Does that give the copyright holder actual grounds to sue the WMF? Their conversations aren't going to be, I believe, protected by privilege, so would that "yes, this is a copyright issue, and no, we're not removing it" going to be discoverable should said lawsuit happen? Is it worth the risk?Haveyouever met a lawyer who's happy?GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸00:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I didn't realize you didn't have TAIV until yesterday. That would be needed for help with my request. If you don't have time, all good. Seems like you have a good handle on such matters so figured I'd ask :)NicheSports (talk)15:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ChildrenWillListen. Per your request, your account has beengrantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals usingtemporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that isonly to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Accessmust not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or moreIP addresses (using theCIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visitingSpecial:Preferences. Happy editing!* Pppery *it has begun...05:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are on the same IP networks as the TAs that vandalized the GORILLA essay. I wasn't really expecting more after the first one, so I just archived that one, but I guess some vandals come with a free chip on their shoulders. Haven't reported to AIV or anything because I think it's probably best to just DENY here, but they might be keen to cause more shenanigans elsewhere.--Gurkubondinn (talk)23:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the edit filter warnings and thought it was a valid application ofWP:IAR, considering that the other archive had much more info than the ATMN one (I'm not sure why it wasn't merged with the case). However, that was contested so I was clearly wrong (my view on IAR is that if you ever need to cite it to explain your actions, something has clearly gone wrong).ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)02:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't merged with the case because the clerk-in-training, who is performing the merge, was conferring with their trainers. Please don't IAR clerk at SPI. If you need something, ask a clerk or a CU. --asilvering (talk)02:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here - is there any particular reason your name isn't atWP:AFCP? You've been here more than long enough by now. There's a backlog drive on at the moment so it's a great time to learn. Come help us bail draftspace out of all the drafts you send there from RC patrolling. :) --asilvering (talk)02:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely think about it! I'm not sure if I'll have enough time this month, but I should have some. I also don't want to request AFC perms just yet because I requested TAIV yesterday and I don't want to be seen as hat-collecting. My current goal is to start looking intoCAT:COIREQ when I have the time.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)02:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperPianoMan9167: I'm going to say probably not. They haven't done anything that obviously sticks out as ATMN, and preventing IP editing is certainly not something they have known to advocate for.ColdNerd is obviously related to this account and a{{checkuserblock-account}} without a valid master probably means there's some CU-only things (proxies, anonymous editing, ...) going on we may not have access to.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)03:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I do, it will be reverted within five minutes by other editors. There are many ways to present the disagreement over what a "fictitious name" is. I will try entering one.Julian in LA (talk)18:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following from your ANI post, I took a peek at the contribution history ofUser:Vanderwaalforces & it looks really iffy - e.g. lots of accepted articles for Nigerian politicians with blogs as sources (UPE?).
Do you know if the contribution history gets reviewed once an account is marked as compromised, or is it down to the community to find them as we go?Blue Sonnet (talk)13:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue-Sonnet@ChildrenWillListen I believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding the objectives of themeta:African Legislators in Red 2025. It is not a paid editing initiative; rather, for the past two years, the campaign has focused on improving the visibility of African politicians while strictly adhering to theWP:NPOL notability criteria without any COI. The expenses outlined in the budget are limited to essential items such as data reimbursement, communication, and refreshments for participants during training sessions. These provisions are purely supportive and do not, either directly or indirectly, lead to UPE.
As one of the facilitators of the campaign, I have personally reviewed numerous drafts and ensured compliance withWP:NPOL, rejecting those that did not meet notability requirements. The relatively low number of rejections is largely due to the guidance provided to participants, including the use of carefully curated query lists that already meet theWP:NPOL criteria.Ibjaja055 (talk)12:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People do get paid for it
First Prize: ₦TBA Second Prize: ₦TBA Third Prize: ₦TBA
@ChildrenWillListen There is a difference between being paid to create articlesWP:PAID and participating in contests or edit-a-thons where top contributors may receive prizes or vouchers. A lot of Wikimedians operate within this latter framework. It would therefore be inaccurate to characterize participants as paid editors, and doing so may lead tocasting aspersions.Ibjaja055 (talk)15:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:PAID, anyone who obtains or stands to obtain money for their edits is considered a paid editor, regardless of whether they're paid by some corporation or a WMF sponsored edit-a-thon. This isn't an aspersion when the fact they're getting paid (or well, some of them) is public. Of course, being a paid editor doesn't always mean it's a bad thing, though it means that their ulterior motives may not necessarily align with building an encyclopedia. Also, I don't think many Wikimedians actually get compensated for their activites (Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence is a notable exception).ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)05:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing so much hard work, even from the moment you joined, in such a small period of time! Working through blocks, working though people asking things For this, I'm giving you a barnstarZxilef (talk)08:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HelloChildren Will Listen: Thank you for updating the recall section title in theDaily Harvest article. I was wondering if you might have time to review my request on the DH talk page from December 2? It includes updates on the recall such as the class action information. It also still mentions, but shortens the section on consumer’s displeasure with how the previous CEO handled notifications of the recall. In the current article, that topic gets a whole paragraph which doesn’t seem to meet the balance guidelines. If you have time to review, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you,Marksherr16 (talk)16:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Saw your notice on this editor's talk page...do you know what other accounts are possible socks? They do have very specific editing interests & style. (I thought their lengthy screed on their user talk was really over the top.) They instituted wrongful information on theMary Ball Washington article that has been a long-running vandalism problem. -Shearonink (talk)18:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They claimed to have previously interacted with Commons and Wikidata admins before, which they clearly have not done with this account. And of course, we have the username, editing pattern, and the mobile app usage which is rather unusual, and those are what drew me to this account in the first place. As for the master, I have a few ideas but none I can make a credible connection to.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)21:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, not directly to the master but the 2 socks connect directly to Fool me once... Another thing to keep an eye out for are edit summaries of "I have no citation at this time" for changed edits, which has turned up on various articles likeJames A. Garfield, seethese edits. Oh well, small update, the SPI has been commented on as "already blocked". -Shearonink (talk)05:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Luma Operation article, I have presented entirely solid, clear historical and literary evidence to support my contributions which stand on their own merit. As for your unsolicited remark about AI tools, I would kindly ask you to spare me your amateur analysis, it is frankly embarrassing that you seem unable to distinguish between a capable writer and a machine, and your assumption that coherent writing must be artificial speaks volumes about your own standards rather than my methods, so please refrain from cluttering my talk page with such ill-judged and demonstrably false assumptions in the future.FranéRogoz (talk)21:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Now thatWP:U5 is gone, getting rid of them is going to be far too much work. Best to just blank them, or file an SPI report and hope they're all operating under the same IP/range.
Sorry CWL, I don't see grounds for a check here - my spot-check of their contributions does indeed suggest this is a class project of some kind, and there's nothing wrong in principle with class projects. --asilvering (talk)06:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Regardingthis edit - are we sure the code was ever removed? The RfC description used past tense, but I don't see any evidence that the code was ever taken out, versus just always being there, unless I've missed something.SamWalton (talk)15:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done~ ToBeFree (talk)06:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Aesurias (talk)06:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created,User talk:Soviet invasion of Albania, may not conform to some of Wikipedia'sguidelines for new pages, so it will beremoved shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please useyour sandbox for any tests, and consider using theArticle Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to readYour first article. You may also want to read ourintroduction page to learn more about contributing.Did you intend to be posting to an article talk page and end up creating a user talk page for a non-existent user?Robert McClenon (talk)21:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likely based on geolocation, though.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)23:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply].jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_cropped.jpg)
