User talk:Chaotic Enby

CHAOTIC   

TALK

• ARCHIVES
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
• NEWS

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You know what I think of you, and how happy I am to see how you've grown and blossomed. Keep approaching life and Wikipedia how you do, you'll reach all the goals you want to here and in life. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Always so happy to hear it, thanks for the self-confidence boost! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi User:Chaotic Enby,

I really need your help with an ongoing issue. On the Rashtrakuta Empire and Amoghavarsha pages, my sourced edits are being repeatedly reverted without proper discussion. I’ve tried to open talk page discussions, but the those editors are not engaging and not responding — instead they simply restore older, unsourced or weakly sourced material that reflects their POV.

The main accounts doing this are (Holenarasipura) and (PiedHornbill). Their editing patterns and style are very similar, and while I cannot be certain, I suspect they may even be operated by the same person. What concerns me most is that they are:

Removing well-referenced content

Re-adding questionable or misleading claims (e.g., saying the Rashtrakutas’ emblem was Garuda, or that Amoghavarsha “adopted” Jainism instead of being born Jain, despite inscriptional evidence)

also I have seen those accounts contribution Consistently blocking other editors’ contributions just because they don’t align with their POV

Another issue is that they are often changing the content but retaining the same references I had added, even when those references do not actually support the new claims they insert. This makes the articles misleading because the source is being misrepresented.

This has become very frustrating, because instead of refining the content, they are reverting wholesale and undoing sourced contributions. I’m worried this discourages constructive editing and leaves important articles with biased or inaccurate information.

Could you please take a look and advise me on the best way to proceed? I want to ensure these articles reflect reliable sources and remain balanced, but at this point I feel stuck. Your guidance would mean a lot.

Thank you. Shraman revival (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Shraman revival! Especially on featured articles like Rashtrakuta Empire, it is best to be careful when making bold changes. Notably, once reverted, you should start a talk page discussion instead of reverting back to your preferred version. Since you were the one adding content, it is your job responsibility to make the case for the change on the talk page, and you shouldn't describe your proposed changes as the "stable version".

On the flip side, I see that you have started a talk page discussion, which is great! The article is currently undergoing a review of its featured status due to sourcing reasons, so sharing your concerns regarding sourcing on the talk page is ideal. My advice would be to wait for a few days for a talk page response, and, in the meanwhile, familiarize yourself with what might count as edit-warring. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Unexplained map removal on Sikh Empire infobox

Hope you doing great, so recently i get to know about a editorial counteraction made by this User [1] to defy the old verging map which doesn't even standalone properly so i come to one zonal conclusion to satiably undo this problematic addition to last good version while intelligibly removing the so called remnant word include Sikh Kingdom as it nothing have to do with current misinterpretations Sillentbutviolant (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

For this time i just want to readdress that it not considerable enough to explicitly instate Sikh Kingdom on this articulation and even if you think its right to add such kind of monological changes (which most of user avoid), we should crucially focus on the righteous invocation and off-course thats the silent feature of this encyclical platform, In the end i would like to shoutout you for your spectacular contribution to our User-friendly community Sillentbutviolant (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! While changing the map without consensus is not ideal, the best solution would be to ping the editor who made the change (on the talk page). There is already an open thread about the map, so further discussion can take place there. I am not sure exactly which specific issues you are pointing out, but that is, again, best addressed on the talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Some additional context since I can’t post to the talk page

A bit of cursory googling will show multiple sources from all over that bella ciao is both an anti facist folk song and an online meme used by gamers, often facetiously.

https://x.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1966544502178369536 Is one such explanation.

if you want to follow up with this, be my guest, if not, no biggie :) Oldbaymd (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

True, although we should stick to analysis of the motives from reliable sources. Bella Ciao is certainly an antifascist song, but I'm not convinced the gamer aspect specifically overshadows the song's place in wider popular culture. Given the amount of WW2-era songs featured in HOI4, I'm not sure if the most important thing to note about Bella Ciao is that it was a pre-order bonus for Italy's DLC. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Completely valid. My curiosity stemmed from whether it was a dog whistle of some kind and I found numerous sources that it was a meme among gamers and often meant the opposite in such circles. That was the part I found most interesting and least likely to be explained in media.

I would never use the bird app as a reliable source, that was just the most succinct.

btw I’ve enjoyed your contributions and how measured you have been this past day or two, especially as it has gotten more heated. I’m rather new and folks like you are great leaders for newbs like me. Thank you :) Oldbaymd (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the compliment! Sadly because of the mess even the talk page had to be extended-protected, although if you do have sources analyzing the bullet markings in that specific light, you can still submit edit requests at WP:RFED (which is currently pretty much just Charlie Kirk stuff). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Didn't want this to slide by without hearing your view

I have zero problems with your G5 tag on TORN: The Israel–Palestine Poster War on NYC Streets but I declined it. I did the reading and agree the subject could certainly be considered inside the PIA subject area. The page creator first edited in 2016, and has done a fair amount of work in Italian sports pages. You are quite correct that with only 395 edits, they don't meet EC and as such they are not supposed to be editing in an ECR space. However, WP:ARBECR does allow discretion by admins. We are allowed to delete, but are not required to do so in such cases. In this case, we have a page which I would pass as a reviewer, certainly meets GNG and possesses diverse and reliable sourcing which directly details, submitted by a longtime contributor in good standing with no history of disruption. Are you okay with my assessment? BusterD (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD Thanks for the feedback! Beyond the simple ECR problem, I had some issues with the article that would require a deeper assessment. The article did have a strongly non-neutral tone (especially the "Critical response" section which appeared to unduly focus on positive reviews), and gave hints of being AI-generated (from typographical signs such as curly quotes and em-dashes, to more subtle wording choices). If the article was in better shape, I probably wouldn't have tagged it, but its current state means that it would need a pretty deep review that might require more effort from volunteers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, multiple references appear to be completely made up (references 3 and 4 from BBC and Fox respectively, which both give 404 errors, as well as 13 and 14, which link to the homepages of websites that don't appear to have actual reviews), which is one of the WP:G15 bright-line criteria. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked for better eyes. I concur about your source analysis. The clickthrough I performed was not exhaustive, obviously. I'll G15 the page. The work does possess that general LLM appearance. Sad. Hoped we were seeing an Italian race fan become a serious contributor. Turns out, not so much... BusterD (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with the edit filter today. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!

From SuperHamster and SuperGrey, 05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.

Question from Mamani1990 (11:56, 14 September 2025)

Good morning ChaoticEnby, hope you're well. I've never seen such a large conceited effort to keep a page before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Paparusso (2nd nomination). Lots of COI/paid contributors and the articles used are from August/Sept. 2025 and are paid placements. This is a large PR effort on the subject's part. I'm not sure if I'm doing everything correctly to clean up the comments in the AfD discussion. I would appreciate your help or any comments you have to share. Thank you in advance. --m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Tagging edits by single-purpose contributors is helpful, especially since one acknowledged being hired by a person to take a look here, so there might be a concerted effort. However, your tagging of Damianerico and Meligirl5 might be a little bit overzealous: the first one, while having a relatively low edit count, appears to have also participated in other AfDs and talk pages recently. The second one (suddenly becoming active after more than a year) is a bit more concerning, but, given the earlier AfD participation record, the tag doesn't really fit, and it might be better to directly ask them whether they have a connection with the subject. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the tag on Meligirl5 and asked her directly on her talk page. For Damianerico, it was Jeraxmoira who tagged them so I'm not going to touch it. Enjoy the day :) m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Mari ivanovic (22:12, 16 September 2025)

Hello, what is the easiest way to get to 10 edits so I can publish a page? --Mari ivanovic (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mari ivanovic! Writing an article is never easy, and it isn't something I would recommend for a new editor. Having 10 edits is the bare minimum, mostly as an anti-spam measure, but it is best for you to familiarize yourself a bit more with Wikipedia editing before trying that. If you're not sure where to edit, I invite you to look at recommended tasks on your Special:Homepage to begin with!

Once you feel that you are ready to create an article, you can read Wikipedia:42 and Wikipedia:Your first article to have an idea of how to go at it, and submit it through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Good luck!

By the way, if you've been instructed to write an article (say, as part of your job, or by a relative), or are writing about something you are personally connected to, you should imperatively read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (and, if applicable, Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for a reply! I have been learning for some time now how Wikipedia works. I work as an editor and athough I know Wikipedia is specific, I am familiar with referencing, having reliable sources, etc. :) But you are right, writing an article is not easy. Mari ivanovic (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want, you can first create it as a draft with the Wikipedia:Article wizard! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Will do! Mari ivanovic (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Mamani1990 (12:54, 17 September 2025)

Good morning Chaotic Enby, I have some questions in regards to copyrights and images. An organization in my town has the copyrights to old photographs that I would like to upload into some biographies I've written. They request $20 per photograph and want to maintain their copyright. Is this technically allowed/possible? What is the concept of fair use exactly? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. --m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 12:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mamani1990! We can't buy the rights to use copyrighted photos, because of Wikipedia's own free licensing requirements. Besides very specific exemptions of fair use, images need a free license, roughly meaning that they can be reused for any purpose provided that appropriate credit is given.

Fair use is an exemption to copyright law that allows for limited reuse of copyrighted material when no free equivalent is possible, and when it wouldn't infringe on the copyright owner's financial opportunities. Wikipedia has even stricter criteria than those outlined by law (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) because of its objective to produce free content. In the case of the fair use exemptions, since they do not legally infringe on the copyright, there is no need to pay the copyright holder to get their consent.

The only case where paying a copyright holder would make sense (although it shouldn't be the responsibility of volunteers to do it) is to have them release copyrighted photographs under a free license, but that doesn't seem to be the case you are describing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chaotic Enby, thank you very much for this information. I wasn't quite clear before and I apologize. My case is as you describe in your last sentence. The copyright holder is willing to release the photo (albeit a lower resolution one) under a free license for $20. If I decide to do it, should I be concerned about some type of COI? Best, m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 14:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Releasing only a lower-resolution version isn't possible according to the Creative Commons license. Pinging @Jlwoodwa who brought up that specific issue and might be more knowledgeable than me about it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for making Charlie Kirk killing article! ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 02:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for International recognition of Palestine

On 28 September 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article International recognition of Palestine, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 07:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ziad Takieddine

On 29 September 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ziad Takieddine, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 01:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Birth based on age as of dates

Template:Birth based on age as of dates has been nominated for merging with Template:Birth based on age as of date. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Outing

In August, someone posted your GitHub username (plus a space) in articlespace. Since you didn't mention it on your user page, you might want to search for it, in case you want it removed. 173.206.37.177 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries here – my GitHub username is my birth name, under which I've conducted the interviews (to 404 Media and WSJ) linked on my user page, so having it mentioned is fine with me! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Some stray wording for a rainy day

Private figure with no indication of importance

Biographical content about identifiable living persons who have little to no involvement in public life and do not have any credible claim of significance, with the exception of content about Wikimedians in the User and Wikipedia namespaces. If the page includes non-public information, it should be referred to Oversight. This criterion does not apply in mainspace, where the higher standard of A7 should be applied instead.

References

Bonne soirée ! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

CC @Alalch E. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Tamzin, that wording works great for me! One tiny nitpick, maybe social network activity is a bit too low of a bar for a "private" figure, given that most people today do use social networks. Maybe that's what you had in mind with "nontrivially" and "public", I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on that (if you find time for it, of course!) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "being significantly active on social or professional networks oriented toward a wide audience"? I'm thinking of like, people who are active enough on Twitter or LinkedIn that they clearly consent to being a public figure to some degree. But I don't mean to include someone who makes a Facebook post once a month or something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That's great wording! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)