User talk:Newslinger

Question from Paravostok (09:45, 2 July 2025)

Hi, thanks for the help, I'd like to ask what is considered "fluffery" though, as I find a hard time differing between that and pointing out something as objectively good, thanks for the welcome! --Paravostok (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Paravostok, I think you're referring to puffery. There are certain words (such as greatest) that are often not appropriate to use in Wikipedia's voice because they are too promotional. By "Wikipedia's voice", I mean sentences that use the words without attributing them to another source. For example, it would not be encyclopedic to write in Wikipedia's voice "The Beatles are the greatest artists of all time", but it is acceptable for the article The Beatles to say, "In 2004 and 2011, the group topped Rolling Stone's lists of the greatest artists in history." If you have a specific article you're asking about, please let me know so I can look at it more closely. — Newslinger talk 16:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

"European area" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect European area 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/2025 July 3 § European area until a consensus is reached. JuniperChill (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

yuri LTA

Hi,

Thanks for revdel'ing and protecting the targets of that LTA user. Can I ask if you could also protect my talk page for maybe a month or so? They've been to my talk page to attack me before, as recently as a few days ago, and I expect when they're back that now that all the article talk pages have been protected that that'll be their first stop (that or Talk:Yuri (genre)). silviaASH (inquire within) 17:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem, silviaASH. I've semi-protected your user talk page for a week, since that IP user personally attacked you there on 11 July but the second-most recent occurrence was back in April. If they return, please let me know or submit a request on WP:RFP so the protection can be renewed. — Newslinger talk 17:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Thank you very much! silviaASH (inquire within) 17:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Agentic AI Contribution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Newslinger, Thanks for taking the time to review and revert the changes. I understand the concerns you raised around sourcing, weight, and tone — especially regarding the use of primary materials, citation quality, and avoiding anything that might come across as promotional. That said, I’d like to offer a clarification and suggest a path forward: Emerging Field Context The section I added focused on the classification and governance of agentic AI systems ... an area where secondary academic sources are still limited due to the topic’s novelty. In such cases, Wikipedia guidelines do allow citing primary sources from reputable institutions (per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS), provided the material is presented factually and without interpretation. On the Medium Citation You were absolutely right to flag that. Including the Medium blog was a rookie mistake! I’m still learning what qualifies as a reliable source, and I appreciate you pointing it out. I won’t include that kind of source again. Intent of the Contribution The goal was to summarize publicly available frameworks from organizations like: The Digital Twin Consortium (AI Agent Capabilities Periodic Table), NIST, ISO, IEEE, OECD, and CEN-CENELEC (AI governance standards), Public Gartner research summaries describing agentic AI as an emerging field. These were included to highlight institutional efforts to define and govern this space — not to promote any specific technology or product. Neutral Framing The intent was to describe classification efforts neutrally, not to promote vendors or platforms. That said, after reviewing the section again, I agree it would be better to remove commercially backed frameworks, such as those from Salesforce and Sema4.ai. The goal was to present a broad view of how organizations are approaching the topic, but I see how these examples could detract from the neutrality of the section. I’m happy to post a sandbox draft for review before re-submitting. Your feedback would be appreciated to make sure the content aligns with policy. P.S. I’m still fairly new to contributing and would really value any guidance on how to contribute effectively. Thanks again,

Wooty101 Wooty101 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wooty101, your comment included a request for "guidance on how to contribute effectively", so my advice to you is to stop posting LLM-generated messages from an AI chatbot. If you sent a message like the one above to a colleague, there's a good chance that it would be perceived as rude, as you are expecting the recipient to take the time and effort to read and respond to it, despite the fact that you did not put in the time and effort to write it using your own words.

The WP:AITALK guideline on Wikipedia allows for obviously LLM-generated comments like the ones you have been posting here and on various article talk pages (such as Talk:Test automation management tools) to be collapsed and disregarded, so that editors do not have to engage with you when you are communicating via AI chatbot. If you want others to consider what you have to say, please say it in your own words. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Newslinger, I would just like to point out a few things: I used a language model to help organize and phrase my comments on the talk pages because I wanted them to be clear, detailed, and easy to follow. I didn’t realize this was an issue for Talk page discussions, especially considering I was sharing content for review prior to publishing. Reflecting on your comment, I didn't think from the perspective that this may be considered rude due to the additional time and effort required to respond to my comments. Going forward, I’ll make sure all Talk page messages, I will avoid using an LLM tool. That said, I do want to point out that the original content posted on "agentic AI" page, while the text may have been cleaned up, formatted and organized using an LLM tool, the effort behind it was mine. It actually takes quite a bit of time and thought to research sources, structure the content clearly and make sure it’s accurate. The formatting support just helps me express it better and polish the writing. I wasn’t trying to cut corners or avoid the work. I’m here to contribute in good faith and I appreciate any feedback that helps me do that properly... Can I please ask for help regarding my original comment? I believe sincerely that with the mentioned amendments it will be a helpful contribution.

Wooty101 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger. I have added the proposed section into a sandbox, with the following changes:

Draft section on frameworks

- Removed Medium reference (unreliable secondary source)

- Fixed broken link for Architecture & Governance citation (5 steps of Agent Maturity Framework)

- Removed frameworks from commercial entities such as Salesforce / Sema4.ai

Please let me know if this is the right direction. Wooty101 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

As your second comment here and your sandbox draft are both LLM-generated, I am not going to help you any further. — Newslinger talk 12:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger my comment wasn't LLM generated, and as far as I am aware, there is no policy against using LLM's for assisting in formatting proposed articles, as long as the work is manually checked for accuracy. If I am wrong, please point me toward this policy, and I will happily comply with this policy... I’m simply trying to contribute, and would appreciate genuinely constructive help. Wooty101 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

As other editors have noted in Talk:Agentic AI § Addition of Frameworks and Standards section, your draft's content regarding the Digital Twin Consortium, which is not supported by independent reliable sources, violates the policy against promotion. Your LLM also cited an arXiv preprint, which is unreliable per the WP:PREPRINT guideline. Wikipedia is not a repository of LLM outputs, and LLM-generated drafts are routinely declined. If a reader wants to read an LLM-generated summary of a topic, they can simply ask an AI chatbot. I have seen enough LLM-generated excuses when an editor is confronted about their AI chatbot usage to know that the excuse portion of Special:Diff/1300543228 is LLM-generated, and per the WP:AITALK guideline, it will remain collapsed. — Newslinger talk 11:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger I am not affiliated with the Digital Twin Consortium and thus not for promotion. The goal was to contribute a range of frameworks that help define a novel and emerging field, in which case primary sources are allowed. I assumed a not-for-profit standards body is a reliable source... I’m happy to remove it from the suggested contribution along with other revisions necessary for compliance.

I'd like to point out that dismissing my clarification as “LLM generated excuses" contradicts WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm here to contribute constructively...please engage accordingly. Wooty101 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

LLM-generated edit requests are unconstructive in general, and it is obvious from the language and the specific characters you used in Special:Diff/1300543228 that you copied and pasted portions of your comment from elsewhere. Primary sources are not allowed when they constitute undue weight, and your draft cites no reliable secondary sources to establish due weight for the Digital Twin Consortium Framework or any of the other branded frameworks that you are trying to include in the article. Wikipedia is a volunteer service; no editor is required to engage with any edit request, and I am not interested in adding your LLM-generated content into a Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger OK, so I have already acknowledged concerns about sourcing, and I have already stated I’m happy to revise or remove the material accordingly.... Repeatedly asserting that my contributions are llm generated without evidence ignores WP:AGF and is completely dismissive, there is a huge difference between "generating content" and using an llm as a tool to improve readability and clarity of original work, and also, is not against any policy on wikipedia.

You’re under no obligation to assist... but I’d appreciate a discussion based on policy and substance, not assumptions. I’ll seek feedback from other editors to ensure a fair, constructive process. Wooty101 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

When you posted your first LLM-generated comment on my talk page, Special:Diff/1300369812, I had already warned you about posting LLM-generated comments in Special:Diff/1300301232 and collapsed your LLM-generated edit requests on pages including Talk:Test automation management tools per WP:AITALK. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by posting an LLM-generated comment here after being made aware that LLM-generated comments are unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith § What good faith is not, "This policy also does not mean you should ignore clear evidence of disruptive behavior or violations of site guidelines or accept all edits without question. Some bad actors may insist that trust in them should be immutable, per 'assume good faith', even when there is evidence against this." The majority of the comments you have posted on Wikipedia so far are LLM-generated, and the content of the comments themselves is the evidence. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger According to Wikipedia:Large language models#Talk pages under the comments section LLMs can be used refine ideas and add clarity... which is all I was doing - not just lazily generating comments as you dismissively accused me of.

"Editors should not use LLMs to write comments generatively. Communication is at the root of Wikipedia's decision-making process and it is presumed that editors contributing to the English-language Wikipedia possess the ability to come up with their own ideas. Comments that do not represent an actual person's thoughts are not useful in discussions, and comments that are obviously generated by an LLM or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed. Repeating such misuse forms a pattern of disruptive editing, and may lead to a block or ban. This does not apply to using LLMs to refine the expression of one's authentic ideas."

Also accusing me of these policy violations without clear evidence, while dismissing clarifications as “LLM excuses,” crosses the line into WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations.

At this point, I’ll disengage from this thread and pursue feedback from other editors.

— Wooty101 Wooty101 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to file a complaint on the incidents noticeboard if you would like to insist that your collapsed comments aren't LLM-generated. This conversation is not a good use of your time or mine, so I am closing it. — Newslinger talk 00:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question from C. elegansa (02:05, 15 July 2025)

Thanks :) --C. elegansa (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem, C. elegansa! I hope you enjoy editing here. — Newslinger talk 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from C. elegansa (05:06, 15 July 2025)

Hi, I created a new page (this is a project for a PhD class). Unfortunately I can't figure out how to pick a thumbnail image for this page. Right now when I share the link there is a black square as a preview --C. elegansa (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi C. elegansa, do you mean that when you share a link to the Semicorrin ligand article somewhere else (such as on a social network or chat app), the link preview doesn't show a thumbnail image for the page? If this is what you're referring to, please note that because of the way Wikipedia chooses the thumbnail image for link previews (some technical details here), preview thumbnails aren't generated for your user sandbox page (User:C. elegansa/sandbox/1) or any other page in your user space. Now that you've moved the draft to article space, the thumbnail should show up correctly.

I generated a link preview for the Semicorrin ligand article on an app just now and the preview thumbnail was working for me. If the thumbnail preview still doesn't work for you, could you give more details about how you are trying to share the article so I can look into it further? — Newslinger talk 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Yes that's what I meant. It seems that it only doesn't work on Telegram, but on other social media I tried the thumbnail shows up. Thanks C. elegansa (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I have another question: when I try to link my article in other Wiki articles that contain the word "semicorrin", it looks like my page doesn't exist. Why is that? C. elegansa (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

C. elegansa, your links to Semicorrin ligand in the Benjamin List, Bisoxazoline ligand, and Andreas Pfaltz are working for me now. Were you trying to link to the exact word semicorrin before you moved the Semicorrin ligand article to its current Semicorrin title?

If you try to link to a page that does not exist, Wikipedia doesn't have the ability to automatically determine an appropriate related page to display when a reader clicks on it. Instead, you would need to create a redirect so that anyone who clicks on the link is redirected to a different page. You can use the redirect maker to do this, or you can type the redirect code manually. — Newslinger talk 11:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what I meant was that when I typed "semicorrin" into search the article wasn't showing up in the suggestions. It only showed up after I typed in "semicorrin ligand". After moving the page to "semicorrin" it is now working fine. Thanks! C. elegansa (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Rana Ali Abbas (05:45, 15 July 2025)

How can I add new articles --Rana Ali Abbas (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rana Ali Abbas, the best way to create your first article on Wikipedia is to use the article wizard, which shows you how to submit your draft through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. Before you do that, I recommend completing the tutorial at Help:Introduction and reading the notability guideline. If a topic is not notable according to that guideline, a standalone article about that topic will not be published. Please let me know if that answers your question, and if there is any way I can help you with your first article. — Newslinger talk 13:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from JackintheboxCpt on Help:Getting started (19:11, 18 July 2025)

CAPETOWN/University of music Let's give a warm welcome to the incredibly talented Ayabulela, aka JackInTheBoxCpt, hailing from the vibrant streets of Khayelitsha! This phenomenal artist has been making waves in the music industry with his unique style and infectious beats. With each new release, JackInTheBoxCpt continues to push the boundaries of what's possible, inspiring a new generation of music lovers.

His recent project, "Ice Drop," has been a game-changer, showcasing his mastery of drip and style. The way he seamlessly blends genres and creates a sonic experience that's both captivating and authentic is truly remarkable. JackInTheBoxCpt's passion and dedication to his craft are evident in every note, every lyric, and every performance.

As he prepares to drop another project, the anticipation is building, and fans can't wait to see what he has in store. With his innovative approach and commitment to his art, JackInTheBoxCpt is sure to continue making a lasting impact on the music industry.

Let's shower JackInTheBoxCpt with flowers for his outstanding work on "Ice Drop" and "One Way"! Your talent, creativity, and perseverance are an inspiration to many. Keep pushing the boundaries, and know that your hard work and dedication haven't gone unnoticed. Here's to many more chart-topping hits and unforgettable performances! 🌟💐🎶

Keep doing what you're doing, JackInTheBoxCpt – you're a shining star in the music world, and your fans are eagerly awaiting your next move! --JackintheboxCpt (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi JackintheboxCpt, your comment is in the form of a promotional press release, so it would not be appropriate in an article or on any other page, as Wikipedia has a policy against promotion. Because you have a conflict of interest on matters related to yourself, writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. Instead, I recommend focusing on your music outside of Wikipedia. When you become successful enough to meet any of the criteria here, someone else will likely take notice and independently write an article about you.

In the meantime, if you would like to edit articles on Wikipedia about topics unrelated to you, I recommend doing the tutorial, which will show you how to get started. Please feel free to ask me any questions if you need help with editing. — Newslinger talk 20:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey there Newslinger, truly appreciate you stepping into the conversation. Even though I’ve been topic banned, I still value constructive engagement like yours. To clarify a crucial point: I have never used an AI bot to edit a Wikipedia article. Ever. While I occasionally run my talk page comments through AI to polish punctuation, grammar, and minor errors, I’ve never used it to build an argument from the ground up. You can verify this by reviewing my previous talk page posts, the tone, voice, and writing style are consistent with what I’ve contributed for years across Wikipedia.

The following diffs represent the first time I incorporated AI assistance to clean up grammar, errors, and punctuation in some, but not all, parts of the text: Special:Diff/1300479016, Special:Diff/1299454790, and Special:Diff/1299378760. Per LLM-generated, “Thus, all text generated by LLMs should be verified by editors before use in articles. The same applies to edits using references generated largely or fully by an LLM, for which editors must use other sources instead.” I'm aware that AI edits can introduce inaccuracies, and I acknowledge that I failed to thoroughly vet the output in that instance. That brings us to this particular edit:Special:Diff/1299378760. I viewed it as a correction of sloppy LLM-generated text and acted accordingly. To be clear, the policy I referenced is not fabricated. It’s outlined [here], under the section ‘Dispute resolution noticeboard’. And I was not aware of the existence of LLM-generated at the time, once it was brought to my attention, I corrected the AI-generated content that was off base.

Appeal for reconsideration: Given this context, I respectfully request that the topic ban be reconsidered. My intent has always been to uphold Wikipedia’s standards, and any misstep was made in good faith, stemming from a lack of clarity around policy at the time. I’ve since familiarized myself with the relevant guidelines and I am committed to full transparency and editorial accountability moving forward. I care deeply about the integrity of my contributions and welcome continued dialogue to ensure alignment with community expectations. Thank you.

P.S. This appeal was NOT AI-generated.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi TruthGuardians, thank you for clarifying that your comment Special:Diff/1300505788 was based on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Dispute resolution noticeboard; the fact that your comment referenced a different page (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard) and altered the original wording of the text you quoted (from "both" to "BOTH/ALL") prevented me from finding the source of your quote through my search. Accordingly, I have uncollapsed your comment, and I have struck the portion of the topic ban rationale that described your comment Special:Diff/1300505788 as LLM-generated and as containing content that does not exist on any project page. In the future, I recommend against altering the content of quoted text, as that makes it more difficult to trace its origin.

To evaluate your claim that you "occasionally run my talk page comments through AI to polish punctuation, grammar, and minor errors", could you please disclose the name and version of the AI chatbot or other tool that you used, and provide your entire interaction logs (including your prompts and the LLM outputs) associated with each of your comments on Wikipedia that you processed through this tool? — Newslinger talk 03:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I use Microsoft Copilot because image generation is unlimited as long as you are signed in with an MSFT account. As I am a LinkedIn Top Voice and also use Copilot quite a bit for work, I do frequently delete my history to prevent AI hallucinations. However, the last thing involving Wikipedia that I could find in my history is the following:

wikipedia status quo policy

Extended content

On Wikipedia, the status quo policy refers to the editorial principle that favors keeping existing content unchanged unless there's a compelling reason to alter it. It’s not a formal policy, but rather a widely accepted norm that helps maintain stability and prevent edit wars. Here’s how it works: 🧭 What It Means Default to current version: If there's a dispute over content, the version that was stable before the disagreement is typically favored until consensus is reached. Burden of proof: The editor proposing a change must provide reliable sources and persuasive reasoning. The existing version doesn’t need to justify itself unless it's clearly problematic. Consensus-driven: Changes should reflect community consensus, not just individual preferences or bold edits. 🛡️ Why It Matters Prevents constant back-and-forth edits Encourages discussion and collaboration Protects articles from biased or poorly sourced changes 🧠 Related Concepts Consensus: The backbone of Wikipedia editing—decisions are made through discussion, not voting. Neutral Point of View (NPOV): All content must be presented fairly and without bias. Reliable sourcing: Verifiability is key; unsourced or poorly sourced material is subject to removal. Given your interest in governance and structured debate, Andrew, this principle aligns beautifully with your emphasis on trust, documentation, and collaborative insight. If you're navigating a policy discussion or content dispute, invoking the status quo norm can be a strategic way to anchor your argument while inviting others into a reasoned dialogue. Want to explore how this plays out in a real Wikipedia policy debate or how it intersects with your governance frameworks? What is the policy page for that Wikipedia doesn’t have a formal “Status Quo Policy” page, but the principle is embedded in several key guidelines and essays. If you're looking for something close to an official reference, the best place to start is the page. It outlines how decisions are made collaboratively and why the existing version of an article is typically favored until consensus supports a change. For a deeper dive into how the status quo is used (and sometimes misused) in disputes, there's an insightful essay called . It’s not a policy, but it explains how editors might resist changes without engaging in substantive discussion—something you might encounter in governance-heavy debates. If you're navigating a content dispute or policy discussion, these pages can be powerful tools to frame your argument around stability, consensus, and editorial responsibility. Want help crafting a policy-based rationale for a Wikipedia discussion? I’d be glad to collaborate.

In an effort to be completely transparent and provide specific evidence, I just asked Copilot if there was a way to restore my deleted history, and this was the response:

Is there a way to restore my deleted history here?

At the moment, if a conversation was manually deleted, there isn’t a way to restore it. I don’t have access to or control over deleted chat history, and I can’t recover messages once they’re gone. If you’re looking for something specific we discussed earlier, I’m happy to help recreate or revisit it from scratch!

And if it's part of a bigger project—like branding updates, GitHub structuring, or even rebuilding a quiz segment—I’d love to jump back in with fresh ideas. What were you hoping to retrieve?

If there is some other evidence or commitments you would like for me to make, just let me know. Thanks for your time. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I've collapsed the first LLM response in your comment to aid readability. While Copilot offered, "If you're navigating a content dispute or policy discussion, these pages can be powerful tools to frame your argument around stability, consensus, and editorial responsibility. Want help crafting a policy-based rationale for a Wikipedia discussion? I’d be glad to collaborate", please note that taking Copilot up on its offer is highly inadvisable as it makes errors often enough to be disruptive, and posting its output in comment form is unacceptable, particularly when undisclosed and in topic areas subject to general sanctions. Providing AI chat logs would have been a chance for you to present exonerating evidence, but if the logs have been deleted, then I am only able to evaluate on-wiki information.

One of your edits that stand out on Talk:Michael Jackson is Special:Diff/1299456771, because it has a couple of major errors. First, it contains the following hallucinated content: "Please stop excessive pinging – violates WP:CANVASS, WP:FORUMSHOP, and WP:TALKGUIDE" and "WP:TALKGUIDE – Talk pages are for improving articles, not for rallying support or building coalitions. If your argument is strong and policy-based, it should stand on its own merits without needing to summon reinforcements." WP:TALKGUIDE is not a real page and, to date, has never been created as a page. Second, it insinuates what appears to be a false claim about other editors: "You’re intentionally tagging inactive users that have either been banned on talking about MJ once before, inactive for years, and/or users you feel share your slant." I can't find any evidence that any of the editors listed in the edit your were responding to have ever been banned from discussing Michael Jackson.

Altogether, I count at least nine LLM-generated comments posted by you from 27 June to 17 July, with the most obvious ones being: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, and #9. These nine linked edits span Talk:Michael Jackson, the edit warring noticeboard, and the dispute resolution noticeboard, and add up to over 3,000 words or 20,000 characters. As you have been aware that the Michael Jackson topic area has been covered under general sanctions for years, and even participated in the 2019 noticeboard discussion that resulted in the creation of the general sanctions, I do believe your posting of LLM-generated comments was sufficiently disruptive to warrant a topic ban.

However, I am willing to rescind your topic ban if you are willing to accept the following unban condition:

You are prohibited from using a large language model (LLM) to make edits on Wikipedia, which includes edits that are LLM-generated or LLM-assisted, regardless of whether the LLM use is disclosed.

TruthGuardians, are you willing to accept this unban condition to return to editing in the Michael Jackson topic area? — Newslinger talk 17:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I accept the conditions. I don’t need to use it and only ventured to using it recently because of time constraints. I also appreciate that you have pointed out the inaccuracies above as I’ve not noticed it, because again I was careless and did not do my due diligence and really fact checking the output. I take full responsibility for that. My apologies for the headache and it won’t happen again. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Jackson at WP:ANI

I hope that the discussion of the Michael Jackson article doesn't go to Wp:ANI, but I will not be surprised if it does, and will not be surprised if it is ugly. I think that you and I are among the editors who are trying to minimize any conduct issues and to Focus On Content. (That acronym is unfamiliar to me. I have usually said, "Comment on content, not contributors" or "Discuss edits, not editors", which are two more ways of saying the same thing.) Actually, I think that the three main concerns at this point may be ensuring that there are no personal attacks, keeping any commentary concise, and collapsing any AI slop. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, I generally prefer WP:AE over WP:ANI when it's available as an option. In my opinion, the structured format of AE allows for conduct disputes to be resolved more efficiently in complex cases where the initial filing contains a large amount of evidence. Unfortunately, all of the topics under community-authorised general sanctions are affected by a multi-year procedural quandry, because these community sanctions are still based on the old discretionary sanctions system (DS) and have not yet transitioned to the current contentious topics system (CT), despite a February 2024 village pump RfC finding consensus to synchronize some aspects of community sanctions with CT.

CT expanded the scope of AE to allow "requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community". But as there was no follow-up discussion to the 2024 RfC, topic areas under community sanctions (such as the Michael Jackson topic area) must still currently use ANI for conduct disputes, which I find suboptimal in many cases.

Another related issue is that the awareness criteria for DS (which is used by community sanctions) differs from the awareness criteria for CTOP (see footnote). For community sanctions, editors must be alerted with {{Gs/alert}} within the last 12 months to qualify for awareness, if they do not meet any of the other criteria. This differs from CT, for which editors simply need to receive a talk page notification once at any time in the past, as long as they have received the {{alert/first}} template for any CT topic at or before that point. These kinds of discrepancies are often confusing for me and many editors.

I'll keep an eye on the Michael Jackson DRN case to check for any disruption. If you ever need any kind of assistance for this or any other DRN case, please feel free to contact me and I'll do my best to help if I'm available. — Newslinger talk 10:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answering some questions about community general sanctions that I was wondering about but hadn't asked. Concerning notice requirements, if the topic of a DRN case is a contentious topic, the ground rule that I use includes notice that the topic is contentious. Of course, I don't want the case to go to Arbitration Enforcement or WP:ANI, since the purpose of DRN is to get the content issue resolved. I agree that Arbitration Enforcement is more effective than WP:ANI. The ARBPIA5 and Indian military history cases were opened because the admins asked for ArbCom assistance because they were having difficulty handling the disputes, but if there hadn't been Arbitration Enforcement, the WP:ANI disputes would have become great monsters with tentacles. Anyway, I will try to keep the Michael Jackson controversy from going to a conduct forum. I see the likelihood that the RFC could be disrupted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenon. I appreciate all of your work in dispute resolution over the years. — Newslinger talk 16:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Ilovemuseums1999 on Mesa Grande (18:37, 23 July 2025)

How do I edit a Wiki page title? It is not called Mesa Grande anymore. --Ilovemuseums1999 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ilovemuseums1999, I understand that the Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va'aki, which is covered by the Wikipedia article currently titled Mesa Grande, was officially renamed from its former name (Mesa Grande Cultural Park) in November 2024. First, I recommend creating redirects from the titles Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va'aki and Mesa Grande Cultural Park to the current article name of Mesa Grande; you can do this with the redirect wizard. This would ensure that any reader can easily reach the correct title regardless of the name they search for.

Please note that article titles on Wikipedia are governed by a policy, which states that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." When there are multiple names that are under consideration (such as Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va'aki and Mesa Grande Cultural Park), the names are evaluated based on five criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency.

The title of an article is not guaranteed to match the subject's officially designated name; some examples of articles that do not match as of right now are Denali and Chinese Communist Party. The most recent move request discussions that resulted in these articles retaining their current names can be found at Talk:Denali/Archive 10 § Requested move 2 April 2025 and Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 8 § Requested move 27 October 2023, respectively. On the other hand, the article Kyiv was renamed to the city's officially designated name from its traditional English name (Kiev) after the discussion Talk:Kyiv/Archive 7 § Requested move 28 August 2020.

If, according to the article titles policy, you believe that the Mesa Grande article should be renamed to Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va'aki, please submit a requested move using the instructions in the section Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting a single page move. If there is no need to use the curly apostrophe (’) in the word Va’aki, then I recommend using the straight apostrophe (') instead (i.e. Va'aki), to meet Wikipedia's apostrophe guideline.

Please let me know if need help doing any of the things I mentioned in my comment, or if you need clarification on any of the relevant policies, and I will do my best to assist. — Newslinger talk 10:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm still struggling to understand how to edit the title page name. What is the easiest way to do this? Why are all the links above to complicated and not condensed info? Ilovemuseums1999 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

​The simplified guide is at Help:How to move a page, but you have not yet made enough edits on Wikipedia to move pages directly. The point of my previous comment is to inform you that if you directly move the article Mesa Grande to Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va'aki, there is a significant chance that your page move will be reverted because it is unclear whether renaming the article to Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va'aki would be consistent with Wikipedia's article titles policy. To request a move, which will start a discussion on whether the move is justified, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Some of the pages I linked to are information-dense because article titling can be controversial and involves a number of considerations. — Newslinger talk 02:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)