User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

Trenbje/Raprep

Hi, I just wanted to note that the reversion you took on Trebnje for unsourced information/WP:OR was added back by the person who added the unsourced information. As you did the reversion, I would like your input as to how to move forth with this as the editor is also threatening edit-warring on Ten-Day War which I reverted (and was previously reverted by others) for WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTOPINION. Thanks and best regards, Tingmelvin (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning their reintroduction at Trebnje they did provide a source, and while I don't agree with putting that statement in wikivoice from that source, its not WP:OR at least.

Now about the Ten-Day War edits, this isn't a topic I am very familiar with, but at a skim I do disagree with the wording of parts of their edits. Here is what I believe would be a good course of action for you to take next:

As part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; they made BOLD contributions, were reverted, and now is the time for discussion. Start a new topic on the talk page, ping them to it, and voice your concerns about their edits. Provide example quotes of passages or wording you find issue with and link relevant policy and guidelines where applicable. Work towards building consensus with fellow editors about what should be included or excluded, you may want to ping other contributors to the discussion to weigh in, but take care to send such pings neutrally so as not to canvass.

If you're unable to build consensus on the talk page naturally then there are options to help such as getting a third opinion, using the dispute resolution process, or running a request for comment. Note that while communication is required, if someone refuses to engage in discussion that does not then allow for the three revert or edit war rules to be ignored. Instead ask an admin, or make a post to a relevant noticeboard, be that the edit war noticeboard or WP:ANI, but be prepared to provide thorough proof of unsuccessful attempts to engage in discussion and continued disruptive editing.

Some final tips; be civil, assume good faith, and try to focus on discussing edits not editors. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Empire and the Independence of Spanish America

The information you reverted is basic knowledge regarding the Spanish American wars of independence. What exactly do you believe needs a reference, or what is your specific concern? Pipo1955 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pipo1955 and thank you for asking! Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable per the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy, this means accompanying it with WP:reliable sources. "Basic knowledge" would be considered WP:original research, is not verifiable, and is therefore not allowed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, not every paragraph needs a separate citation if the information is not disputed and is covered by an existing reference. Over-tagging can disrupt the readability and flow of the article. Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE Pipo1955 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My removal indicates clear dispute, and that knowledge does not count towards WP:COMMONSENSE. Common sense would be such that 1+1=2 or that shoes go on your feet. Do you sincerely claim that statements like "In 1808, the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, as part of his Continental Blockade strategy against the United Kingdom, abducted the Spanish monarchs" and "In 1820, the liberal uprising led by Riego in Cádiz against the absolute monarchy ended the metropolitan military support for the American war effort" are common sense statements? Per WP:V and WP:PSTS a source is required, and per WP:BURDEN the editor who adds information needs to source it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the nature of your comments, it seems that you may not be very familiar with this historical period or the specific conflict in question. For readers with basic knowledge of the topic, much of this information is self-evident. That said, I have no objection to adding the references you’ve requested. If you agree, we can move this discussion and your request to the article’s talk page. I will open a section there and notify you. Best regards. Pipo1955 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"For readers with basic knowledge of the topic, much of this information is self-evident." – It would be wise to assume that someone reading an encyclopedia entry is looking to gain knowledge on a subject, not that they already have the knowledge and are... well, I wouldn't be too sure what they would be doing then.

Feel free to ping me to the talk page, but my only specific issue with the edits in question was a lack of sourcing, if citations are provided then I've nothing further to discuss. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hi Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Spanish Empire several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Spanish Empire, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Both of you are edit warring.. Donald Albury 17:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made two reverts to try to bring them back to the discussion which existed before the implementation of their preferred version. I made no further reverts when it became clear this would not work, and was able to successfully restart the talk page discussion and come to an agreement to request a third opinion. I'm genuinely not trying to be obtuse, but in your view do my actions still constitute edit warring? If so I will try to adjust my editing going forward, thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in Wikipedia:Edit warring: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Both you and Pipo1955 have twice reverted the other's edits in Spanish Empire. That is the beginning of an edit war. Unless you can demonstrate your edits qualify for one of the exceptions to the rule against edit warring, you should stop reverting edits in that article. In my view, you and Pipo1955 are fighting over a content issue, and that needs to be resolved by discussion on the talk page. Donald Albury 18:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may disagree about the specifics here, but I imagine most editors who are edit warring think they are not, so I'll try to temper my approach going forward. Thank you for your considered reply. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that my personal policy, which I have slowly come to after almost 20 years editing WP, is to limit myself to one revert. If my revert is then reverted, I let it stand, except in cases of very obvious vandalism or disruptive editing (in which case, the vandalizing/disruptive editor is likely heading for a block). If no other editor comes in to repeat my revert, I accept that it is better to leave something that I don't like in WP than to get caught up in edit warring. After all, there is no deadline in WP, and hopefully, someone will come along eventually and fix things. If you and Pipo1955 cannot reach agreement on the talk page, then you should follow the advise in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Donald Albury 19:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been ruminating a little and the one revert idea came to me as well, it makes sense, what would two reverts accomplish that one wouldn't?

My light contention is that we were already in discussion on the talk page prior to any edits occurring, I was pinged to review a proposed edit before it was implemented[1], found and voiced issues with the edit[2], and only after this was the edit then put into the article unchanged.[3] I reverted to attempt to bring the discussion back to the talk page, but I admit that a single revert should have been sufficient. I was able to restart the discussion though and have already engaged with DR via the third opinion process.[4]

Going forward I'll be more careful when considering if subsequent reverts are necessary or productive. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bogosian edit clarification

Hello friend, thank you for your notes about the reversion. As a clarification, the edit used verbatim quotes from the linked April 25, 2025 Nerdist interview with Eric Bogosian. There is no speculation. https://nerdist.com/article/eric-bogosian-interview-on-interview-with-the-vampire-daniel-molloy/

There was nothing that scared me. I was fascinated by whatever was going on. My gay experiences were very limited, but it wasn’t like I wouldn’t do something.

If there is another problem, like format or tone or something else, I would welcome feedback. The link above is to the article and shows clearly that this isn’t hallucinated or fabricated in any way. Still, as I said, happy for feedback as would like this to conform rigorously to the standards here. Thank you again for your time!

p.s. I’m a person writing but not sure how people prove that without a captcha. Um, my favorite pie is pumpkin. LLM’s can’t eat pie…yet. Vaughanwilliams11 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vaughanwilliams11. That is not the source that was included in-article, the source that was included was https://nerdist.com/article/eric-bogosian-interview-career-theater-art-humpty-dumpty-iwtv-and-more/ which you can see in this and this diff.

I don't doubt you are a human, but I'm 100% confident you have used an LLM to generate, or to heavily assist in creating, both the content added to the article as well as your talk page messages. Please read WP:LLM in full. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Whoops, sorry, it was part of a three-part interview series with the same outlet released same day. My mistake!

Also, for how I draft, I have HEDS (degenerative connective tissue disease) and Long COVID, so severe typing, concentration, and voice recognition limitations, and occasionally use tools for accessibility support. I’m typing manually right now and every keystroke hurts. But I want to get things on even ground and correct any previous missteps. The situation is non-ideal due to the extremely extractive nature of the tools, and I’m looking for a better solution. But I do verify everything myself. Still, I can see that this is a hard line with edits, so will accommodate those rules.

At this point, with the correct source now available, would you be ok giving feedback as to what’s needed for the edit’s inclusion as verbatim quoted, non-speculative, no commentary, and all other relevant parameters? Thank you! Vaughanwilliams11 (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this diff, I've no particular objections except for the mislinked source and the "New York" claim, I may have missed something but I don't think that is stated in the interview.

Since its generally best for the consensus-building process to keep content discussions on article's talk pages, if you have any more questions about these specific edits feel free to open a new topic there and ping me to it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evel Knievel edit

what is the reason why my edit was not approved. It is a fact that he did become a Christian shortly before his death. Ask your AI on your cell phone whether or not evil Knievel became a Christian before he died. I would like to have my edit put back on the Evel Knievel article. it is a true fact of history and Evel's in particular and deserves to be read by all.

As a donor to Wikipedia I am not happy with the decision not to allow my edit to be posted. Numbersguy58 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Numbersguy58, I'm not an arbiter of what goes on Wikipedia, just another volunteer editor like yourself.

You can view the edit you made here, the only change in that edit was the addition of a lowercase "y" before "Knievel", this is why the edit summary of my revert said "Edit appears to have been made in error."

Concerning the information you would like to add: One of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:verifiability, which necessitates the use of WP:reliable sources to add certain information, like someone's faith. Large language models are unreliable as sources and therefore cannot be used for this purpose, you can read more about LLMs as unreliable sources at WP:RSPCHATGPT and a more general essay concerning the pitfalls of LLM use on Wikipedia at WP:LLM. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott

Thanks for your cleanup efforts there. I'm not excited about the situation myself. But let's succeed by assuming good faith, right up to and including the COI and SPI noticeboards. AGF is always a superior basis for discussion when we run into a questionable actor (even a truly bad one). Debating the traffic stop is small potatoes compared to drawing out at least two (and likely more) accounts working on their own autobiography. BusterD (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely correct of course, I lost the forest for a tree there. I'll try to be more considered going forward with respect to AGF in situations like that. Thank you for the guidance! fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had to figure some of this out the hard way, and I never discourage a serious editor from learning their own lessons (I might need them to share with me one day). The page history shows a passing admin almost everything they need to know. I sympathize a bit less for the subject of an autobio. Friends of mine are sufficiently notable to have come by their articles without such shenanigans, and I believe a degree of calibration between such a subject and the community is a good thing, a healthy thing. I appreciate your understanding the broader setting. BusterD (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]