This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You had time to type out "IP vandal" in your unfair attack on me where you showed you misunderstood what I said. That's a bummer because those two words in an edit summary would have been enough to keep me from bothering you in the first place. Revert me with another snotty edit summary this instant. City of Silver04:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emos vs. Punks, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that emos and anti-emos confronted each other, but Hare Krishna members de-escalated the situation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emos vs. Punks. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Emos vs. Punks), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
While patrolling recent changes, I noticed your addition on the Peso Pluma article [1] of {{For|the weight class|Featherweight}}. My instinct was to revert it, as when I checked the Featherweight article, there was no mention of peso or pluma. When I checked your contribs and talk page, I saw a seasoned and respected member of the community, who knows what they're doing. So I left it be, but I'm still curious. (RCPatroller with zero knowledge of weight classes or the Mexican performer) signed, Willondon (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Spanish, but I got to thinking "pluma is probably feather", and peso is money, right? Also weight as the translation software told me. Never mind. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you will probably want to update your signature. The correct format is CC BY-SA, not CC-BY-SA. Right now it uses the wrong hyperlink. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an editor has been blatantly and egregiously disruptive with clear "malice aforethought", you should always escalate through the structured warning template. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings.
This level 4 warning was unreasonably excessive and even a level 1 warning would have been questionable. The IP editor is making a serious and creditable point and should not be threatened with being blocked just because they have not gone the right way about making that point.
@JMF:Ironic, since the only person that "threatened with [a block]" here was you, a threat to an IP that wasn't even within a limit of the 3RR. You might be unaware of this, but Twinkle provides the levels by default. Giving a 3RR gives a Level-3 warn. (CC)Tbhotch™20:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Since {{uw-editwar}} says that an explicit 3RR/24hr vio is not required for a caution to be issued, I hadn't realised that it pressed the alarm button too. I tried first to issue a {{uw-editwar1}} to de-escalate matters, but it doesn't exist. Now I know why.
But I still assert that the IP editor was not being disruptive, just not playing by the rules that they are not aware of. The points they are making are certainly arguable and defensible, just not presented properly. I see you reverted my reversion and I accept your rationale in doing so, but I suggest you consider self-reverting now that you are aware of the broader context. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{ewsoft}} was what you probably intended. Not knowing the rules is not a justification even for newbies; when editing the webiste, you receive the disclaimer: "By publishing changes, you agree to the WP:Terms of Use". The level of warns were added for the patrolling bots and tools. file:Huggle3 kde ubuntu.png gives you an idea how Huggle perceives this (left column); silver is clean user, dark gray means something else (I haven't used Huggle in a while, possibly it means previously reverted, not warned), and the numbered squares the level of the warn. Whitelisted people won't appear in the tool. Twinkle doesn't use this system, but when warning it defaults to the next warn level. (CC)Tbhotch™20:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I see now that you have been an editor for a very long time, so I struggle to understand what motivated your action in this case? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Máximo Bistrot, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Don't be silly. I'm glad you reported them; I didn't see that. But my point stands: there's no point in reverting them. No, it's not your fault, but the more you revert the more we have to clean up. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And don't call me "honey" please. Just report or find an active admin. This is MidAtlanticBaby, who craves attention. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and they're still at it of course, but there is something you can do cause you been watching a while: it may be that some are targeted more than others--you could report those for protection. I'll do a few but I gotta run. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Bib Gourmand.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Just so you know, you didn't have to do a pageswap to move Brain rot back to its original title. The redirect there had only one revision, so as a pagemover you could have simply overwritten it. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antimonumento 49 ABC, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that sculptures of children's shoes at the Antimonumento 49 ABC(pictured)—honoring those killed in a fire—were later stolen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antimonumento 49 ABC. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Antimonumento 49 ABC), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 16 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Máximo Bistrot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a diner who was denied a table caused Máximo Bistrot to temporarily close by raising concerns about the reservation system? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Máximo Bistrot. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Máximo Bistrot), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 17 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Expendio de Maíz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Mexican restaurant with just four communal tables, no set menu, no reservations, and cash-only payments was awarded a Michelin star? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Expendio de Maíz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Expendio de Maíz), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Given either your previous participation in a topic discussion, or your ongoing editing on music-related articles, I am inviting you to two discussion topics: topic one and two (stemmed from topic one). Your participation would be appreciated. livelikemusic(TALK!)00:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Masala y Maíz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the chefs of Masala y Maíz declined a nomination from The World's 50 Best Restaurants, saying that the list promotes "abuse and sexism, among other issues"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Masala y Maíz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Masala y Maíz), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
In my expereince dealing with LLM is that it falls into two categories -- blatant and suspected. I think we all know how to handle blatant, but in your most recent ANI case, I believe this is a case of suspected. I absolutely see some concerning things that sound a whole lot like a DUCK but I believe in those situations, the most meaningful way forward is twofold:
A bunt, direct (yes/no) question of they are using LLM broadly defined, with nothing else for them to respond to (read: a way to dodge the question innocently). This is different from expecting them to answer an accusation with a straight answer.
Regardless of the answer, focus on the behavioral issues (aside from LLM) as they are easy to trip up (at least as of 2025)... Those are far more concrete things that can be actioned upon instead of getting hyper-focused on the accusation of LLM usage.
Do I think that the editor in question might have been using an LLM on the article talk page -- in some ways, yes -- to at least some degree. If I was to speculate (always dangerous and inaccurate), but they probably did honestly write their own argument for what they wanted the page to end up like, and then used some form of an LLM to help "wikipedia-fy and policy'ize" it with correct laungage. However, I think if that "was" true, I believe they have got the point, and will avoid it moving forward.
Instead, I suggest focusing on the behavior (ignoring LLM suspicions). Right now, your obession on the LLM issue has greatly weakend your ANI position (IMHO)... The reality is I don't care much what tools are used to generate the argument, because bahviors like WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR bevaior trascends the technology being used to write the words. And is, honestly, where I see LLM lead the editor astray, and can more easily be demonstrated objectively.
Hello! you may remove the extra citations that are just passing mentions about the subject and can be removed to emphasize the ones with more SIGCOV about the subject,Cheers!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lorraine Crane}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
An anonymous Wikipedia account with ID 186.65.39.105 has twice disruptively edited or reverted changes to List of accolades received by Wicked (2024 film) twice. I warned him to stop his editing especially since this year's edition of the Hugo Awards have already occurred with the film losing both nominations. As for Australian Effects & Animation Festival, there has been no consensus to include those awards per MOS:FILMACCOLADES. I was planning on submitting this list for featured list promotion on September 14. Could you warn him about his or her editing since I don't want this to become a full blown edit war.
I've noted your unprotection requests at WP:RFPU. I just wanted to say thank you! WP:PROTECT notes, "Wikipedia strives to be as open as possible". In no sense do I mean to question the motives behind the indefinite semi-protections that were applied in the three cases you reported and I unprotected. They were done a long time ago, and there may have been more afoot than a cursory review would uncover. I do think important to unlock as much of the project as we can and still maintain stability. If we can't remain open to good faith contributors, we wouldn't have existed in the first place. So thank you for finding those and requesting unprotection of them! I've added Tallaght Stadium, Template:Asia's Next Top Model, and Immortal Technique to my watchlist for three months, though I doubt anything will happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: Thank you. I have a list but I didn't add it completely to RFPP to avoid spamming it. The full list is the following. If you'd like to unprotect them all, let me know, or I can continue adding them slowly to RFUP.
The "reason" parameter for {{GAR request}} was just added, and it was made mandatory to align with the speedy closure policy on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. If you remember why you added this template to Talk:Pies Descalzos, could you add your rationale in that parameter when you have a chance? The error message shown when the parameter is missing says the template could be removed without comment. I just wanted to avoid the review being dropped for silly bureaucratic reasons. Thanks for your vigilance on article quality! -- Beland (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Contramar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the owner of Contramar opened it in Mexico City to recreate the experience of dining in a beachside palapa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Contramar. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Contramar), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
