Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169

• SCP-LTF-106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SCP-LTF-106 has inserted six to eight paragraphs without a single citation into these three articles:

• Aurora with this edit
• Boyuk Zira with these edits
• Tennessine with this edit

I became aware of this when MayaIn3D wrote on the talk page that: There is a new section of the Aurora page called The Virginian Lights that has no sources, and I'm skeptical that it is entirely AI or a hoax. It has a lot of language that is irrelevant and unscientific for an article of this nature, and all of the images are from June 2024. Online searches yielded no results on the topic-- not even the Wikipedia page itself showed up when using quotations. It's very odd to me, but I could be mistaken.

I verified that there were no relevant results for "The Virginian Lights" in Google.

At best, SCP-LTF-106 has engaged in original research. At worst, SCP-LTF-106 has violated the WP:HOAX content guideline. I note that evolving information about AI guidelines can be found at WP:AI. Peaceray (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I blocked them indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Since becoming an administrator, vaste swathes of unreferenced content has become one of my most commonly used phrases. Pretty close to the OPs assessment. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait a second, Cullen. When did vaste swathes of unreferenced content become an administrator? EEng 20:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Good block. User:Khalji is likely sock or meat of them, based on tag-team editing of that section and similar uncited-content dumps in another article. DMacks (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Also User:173.72.158.124 tag-teaming with SCP-LTF-106. DMacks (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Usernames that include "SCP" in them, especially if they reference urban legends or fringe science, are generally going to be kids and other younger editors who are interested in collaborative fiction. See SCP Foundation. Depending on how young they are, they may have several friends who are also interested in such topics on the same IP (for example: school IPs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Oooooo good catch! DMacks (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, it's important to keep an eye out for copyvios when dealing with SCP fandom users, as it is a collaborative fiction/creative writing topic and younger users are particularly prone to not understanding the implications of copying and pasting their favorite SCP text elsewhere. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: The Tennessine edit is almost certainly LLM generated too. Good block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking into my comment! I think this is the first time I've ever noticed something like this on Wikipedia and wanted to do something about it, but didn't know how. Very new to all of this but now I'm eager to contribute more down the line if I ever spot something else. MayaIn3D (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@MayaIn3D: thanks for taking the time to report it! DMacks (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to report the IP address 115.66.197.156 as they have been doing vandalism repeatedly on the Joker 2 page like repeatedly changing Jackie strangling Ricky to death to an inaccurate action or changing "Joker" to "Yoker". I have already reverted their edits once but they did it again. Please ban them. Thanks. HiGuys69420 (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

HiGuys69420, as it says in multiple places on this page, you have to inform the editor about this discussion. Please do so. Also, this editor has just made three edits. It might have been better to report this at WP:AIV as this doesn't seem like an "intractible" dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

After several months of ethnically-charged POV edits and attacks on other users, I reported Researcherofgreatness on this noticeboard on 19 May. After the discussion, the user was blocked indefinitely citing POV edits (example), WP:NPA (example), WP:NOTHERE (example), WP:EDITWAR (example), and WP:FAKEADMIN (example) in addition to the account's refusal to engage with the evidence presented. An unblock request was rejected on 20 May for being "clearly disingenuous." Unfortunately, the Wiisstlo (talk · contribs) account was created on 21 May and immediately started right where Researcherofgreatness had stopped, continuing to edit war on the Agbada page (examples: 1, 2), repeating the same unsourced editing on the Yoruba people from the Researcherofgreatness' WP:NOTHERE charge, and continuing the personal belligerence from the WP:NPA violations along with editing pages on Yoruba clothing, food, and culture. It was finally blocked as a clear sockpuppet on 30 September after I initiated an investigation. Now, the (now-blocked) History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs) and Sohvyan (talk · contribs) — created on 2 October — have taken up the mantle with near-identical edits on several pages (examples: 1, 2) and continuing with the ethnically-biased POV edits (examples: 1, 2). Like I said in May, the operator of these accounts clearly has a genuine interest on Yoruba culture and history which would be helpful for Wikipedia; however, their conduct is worrying and they are clearly incapable of being objective. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Watercheetah99, didn't you already file a complaint about this editor on ANI recently? Please provide a link to it. Also, if you suspect sockpuppetry, is there a reason you didn't head to SPI? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It falls under the remit of this page due to the outlined violations, sockpuppetry is just one part of it. Watercheetah99 (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

But I thought there was already a discussion on this editor. Please provide a link to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Once again I would just like to state that this is my first Wikipedia account, and I am only editing errors I see to the best of my ability. I have no knowledge of the people I'm being "implicated" with. Sohvyan (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, the previous report on 6 October is here in the archive; Watercheetah99 appears to have just started again with the same wording. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Yngvadottir. It was looking familiar. Watercheetah99, why are you repeating yourself when your previous complaint received no action? If the same thing happens here, will you repost this a third time? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no response to the original complaint, a look at the substance of the report will show the evidence clearly. This happens somewhat often during disputes about lesser-discussed topics; if we simply gave up every time there was no response, then there would be rampant vandalism. All besides the point, now that we're here please look at the report, it outlines a series of violations and prior disciplinary action — Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Watercheetah99, when you file a complaint, please include links to any previous noticeboard discussions, dispute resolution cases or other attempts to resolve the situation. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I will do that in the future. Please could the content of the report get looked at soon? Watercheetah99 (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

While reports can be missed, you seem to be assuming no one has looked at this or your earlier report but there's really no way to know this. It's fairly common reports are ignored because editors do look at them but decide it's not clear cut enough for either action against the editor reported nor for a boomerang at least based on what's presented.

Reports can also get little attention because they're difficult to look in to, another reason it's often unproductive to just repeat the earlier report exactly. For example, while editors can be blocked as socks from ANI reports, it's not very common and even then generally only for simple clear cut cases. You mentioned you didn't open an SPI because it's not just socking you alleged but while true about four fifths of your report deals with other editors already indeffed. This is irrelevant to sanctioning the editors you reported here unless it's there's sufficient evidence they're socks in which case it would be better to open an SPI. Likewise while we could ECP the pages if they keep getting changed by confirmed socks, especially since there's no CTOP area this falls under AFAIK, it would be better to request this at RFPP.

BTW one of your links is a link to a specific version rather than a diff. While it's trivial to diff the previous version [1] it still adds time.

I think the biggest thing is that unless there is sufficient evidence for socking, I'm not sure there's anything here for any sort of sanction. I'll give you Sohvyan's account history is fairly suspicious, created, made a bunch of perfunctory edits some or many of which possibly shouldn't have even been made [2] [3], created their user page [4] and starts to edit war but again this is only a problem if they are socking/evading a block.

You're both accusing each other of vandalism so you're both as bad as each other with that. The edit warring is bad but since you're both engaging in it and it seems to be mostly the two of you again we can't easily say one is worse. The content issue seems to have been largely undiscussed. Talk:Agbada is empty and neither Talk:Sophie Oluwole or Talk:Yoruba people have anything from either of you. So it's not like there's clear consensus on either side.

History Of Yoruba did do this [5] which you showed which seems to be clearly harmful but also hasn't edited since their block expired. And while they edit sporadically enough that they come back, unless they continue to make such clearly harmful edits we're going to end up with a similar case as Sohyvan where it looks like a content dispute with no side clearly in the wrong unless there is sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what I just said, lesser-known topics like this are regularly bypassed because it's hard to look into them for unfamiliar observers, but that does not mean that violations should just run rampant. This is a perfect example, most users familiar with Nigerian history could quickly identify the ethnically-biased tropes and disinformation that these accounts employ — denial of outside influences on things perceived as core to the editor's own ethnicity (Agbada & Yoruba people), removal of other cultures from figures/things with a complex background (Adesuwa (name) & Sophie Oluwole), the downplaying of the history of other ethnicities (Ehengbuda & Kingdom of Benin), and more along with attacks based on ethnic bigotry (like these account even target certain pages because opposed accounts are from those areas/ethnicites which they can tell from the languages in the our user pages) — it's so patently obvious to us but admins are often completely unfamiliar with this and thus just avoid doing anything; that's not a good thing, these pages will just degrade if nothing is done. The sockpuppetry case here is simple, an account is created that makes the exact same edits with the exact same behavioral issues (WP:NOTHERE, misleading edit summaries, etc.) as an account that had been blocked three days earlier, which itself was a sockpuppet of a previously blocked account along with at least one other account with the same behaviors. That is obvious for all to see; thus, it is vital to bring up previous examples and actions taken by/against the old accounts or observers will not receive a full picture of the situation. Pinging users Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs), Arjayay (talk · contribs) and Reading Beans (talk · contribs) who have also had to deal with these users; I'll throw in some of eerily similar jingoist editors for "balance" — Wiisstlo (talk · contribs), Wiisstlo (talk · contribs), History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs), & EmeritusGuru (talk · contribs). — Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think you are a final authority on the authentic neutrality of Yoruba history? Yoruba people tell a British ethnologist the etymology of "Yoruba" from their own language in 1863, but you Watercheetah99, the all knowing God of Yoruba history, you know better than them. The real root of their name must be what is now used as a slur by their current countrymen, a slur that has no meaning in any language, that started simply as a foreign pronunciation of "Yoruba".

I've gone through your editing history and I see how you stalk Yoruba pages making sure to frame anything Yoruba in the most disingenuously counterfeit way, and then hide your clear disdain for them to outsiders under the appearance of objectivity. Crude and biased edits from Jingoists exist, as they do for any other ethnic group, but you are simply a bigot when it comes to Yoruba history.

You will continue encountering "eerily similar jingoists" reversing your edits because any person familiar with the history like I am can see through your anti-Yoruba bias. You can frame every editor that disagrees with you as a vandal or pov pusher, regardless of the reason or proof they provide, but I hope you are ready to do that for eternity without constantly disturbing admins. Sohvyan (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sohvyan, please do not personally attack other editors. Such conduct will lead to a block. And if you are going to make accusations about another editor's conduct, you need to provide "diffs" or linked edits to support your argument with examples. You have to provide evidence so other editors can confirm what is going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The personal attacks have been going on for months on end (examples: 1, 2) along with WP:FAKEADMIN (examples: 1, 2) while regularly employing projection of ethnic bias on accounts that have years-long histories of reverting bigoted edits for or against all ethnicities (the majority of my activity on this page has been reporting ethnically biased accounts, including in opposition to attacks against Yoruba communities — similarly diligent opposition to this vandalism comes from the aforementioned accounts). And it is clear that they have no intention of stopping unless stopped, just read the above reply where Sohvyan directly threatens to create more sockpuppets when this current account is blocked. This is a pattern of behavioral issues that is negatively affecting the site. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Liz, I'm new to this website so I don't know all the rules, I could only speak on what I was seeing this particular editor doing. I will read up on diffs and how to use the appropriate formats so I can adequately convey my impressions in the future. Sohvyan (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Cannot leave a message on any talk page, but the IP 24.172.154.107 has left a very uncalled for message on my talk page. Zênite (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverted, revdel applied, blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate it. Zênite (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of revdel when the target user said it here themselves? 107.77.202.69 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It was not a personal data disclosure, it was empty words. Revert is ok but why revdel? Luhanopi (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW that IP (the blocked one, not the one commenting here) appears to be a long-standing problem editor. After their block is up, may be a good one to keep an eye on given their history of problematic edits. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss with this editor their changes, but they are not listening. Take for example the article Ilya Muromets. They made significant changes to the article which included pushing the version of "Ilia Murovets" based on what is now a fringe view. I reverted their changes and I explained this to them on the talk page, as well as policies such as consensus (since they are a fairly new editor). Despite this, they have decided to continually restore their changes. In the edit summary of their last revert, they stated that my revert was made "without establishing consensus" and on the talk page they wrote that "WP:ONUS does not apply here".[6]

This edit warring is now spilling to other articles. At history of Russia, they made POV edits and they decided now to restore their edits with the edit summary stating "Content with sources reverted without explanation... If you have questions or proposals, please start a topic in discussion". They changed the long-standing first sentence from The history of Russia begins with the histories of the East Slavs to The history of Russia traditionally begins with the histories of the East Slavs, although Russians are as well descendants of finno-ugric tribes in approximately equal amounts citing a source about the gene pool of ethnic Russians (with the reference simply containing an author and a translation of a book title).

I also alerted them that their edits should not be marked as minor but they are still continuing to mark them as minor. Mellk (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Another example of POV-pushing is on the article ruthenium. They changed the sourced statement this word was used at the time as the Latin name for Russia to this word was used at the time as the Latin name for Land of Rus', and reffered to Ukranians at that time.. They also cited a blog post that says nothing about the subject. Mellk (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear reviewers, I want you to notice that this user was involved in series of unreasonable reverts and edit-warring.

In the article Ruthenium they have deleted [sourced statements], obnoxiously summarising their edit:"Complete nonsense". For this they were also criticized by other editors, and they even seemed to deny the fact that name Ruthenia was applied to Ukraine at that time [[7]], not something denied by the article itself or by other editors which I had discussion with in talk page, thus justifying their edit with their own POV.

Unfortunately that's not the end of their disruptive editing. They continue to delete sourced statements in Ilya Muromets article, as well as references to Ukrainian wiki. They deny the existence of Ukrainian bylynas, ignoring the source provided in the article, the heading of which clearly states:"Ukrainian bylyny: Historical and literary edition of the East Slavic epic". They also use an offensive tone in discussion with me, constantly accusing me in POV pushing, ignoring their own critique and threatening me with account block, although I attempted to establish a peaceful talk with them.

In the article "History of Russia", I expanded this article with new sourced statements, which they deleted [[8]], once again obnoxiously summarising their edit:"changes to lead that do not reflect body", although the changes to the body were also made, I suggested them to first start topic in discussion rather then deleting sourced statements . After I reverted them they traditionally started to accuse me in "POV Pushing", although I told them to start topic in discussion if they have issues with the sources.

Similar situation is in the Rus' people article, where they once again deleted my changes, applied to multiple sentences, this time giving an explanation, but for deletion of only one sentence:"The statement about Novgorod not being part of Rus does not belong in this article and uses a fake reference", everything else they didn't concerned explaining.

I already warned them, that they can be reported for this type of behaviour, but they tried to act quicker and report me first, in an attempt to seem innocent. Shahray (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your changes to ruthenium were undone by other editors. As mentioned in the talk page for that article, mentioning Ukraine here is indeed pretty ridiculous and there is no connection between the naming of the element and Ukraine. None of the sources you used mentioned Ukraine in the context of the element or even mentioned the element. There are already sources in the article that say that the element was named after Russia. Despite this, you call this an unreasonable revert.

The main issue here is that you make edits, and in the articles mentioned above, despite there being an ongoing discussion (that you did not even initiate), you continually restore your disputed changes because in your eyes the removal is "unjustified". You were told repeatedly about WP:ONUS, yet for some reason you stated that it "does not apply here" and here you still seem to believe that since any source was cited, this cannot be removed, and it must instead be someone else who needs to get consensus to revert this. Although you also continually made other unsourced and unexplained changes. Can you for example explain why you changed Russian/Russians to "Suzdalians", "Muscovites" and "former Kievan Rus'" (among other changes) despite the statements already being sourced?[9] You were told before to not make unsourced changes like these. Mellk (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This attitude has also not been just to me. They questioned another editor who undid their changes to ruthenium, and when the other editor did not provide the answer they wanted, they said: I'm restoring the content, then, despite the objections, proceeded to make a similar edit using a different source that once again says nothing about the subject (even though this problem was already mentioned in the talk page). This article also has GA-status. Mellk (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As you can see, user Mellk has no issues when the reason for revert is just "who cares", and will even blame those who don't agree with this. Shahray (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The element is named after Ruthenia, which is indeed a name for Ukrainians at that time, not for Russia. It was simply named after Ruthenia to honor Russia, and this is how it became worded, with an established reference for Ruthenia for those who wish to know more about the term. Your deletion of my sourced statements, with a summary "complete nonsense", is ridiculous example of POV push, and was instantly denied by the editors. Similarly, I will restore what you have reverted with a barely given explanation. If you have issues with my sourced segments, you have to discuss and give a proper reason first, and give a proper reason why they're disputed, where we collectively identify if there's an issue with source, and not just delete all my changes them with a summary like:"not true >:(", which is simply unacceptable by Wikipedia.

"Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article" that's what has been written in WP:ONUS, how does that refers to this situation? Whether my changes sourced or unsourced you delete them all indifferently.

"you still seem to believe that since any source was cited, this cannot be removed" no I don't believe that, I don't restore my changes when other editors make rv, because they usually give a reason, but the way you remove them with no explanation is just a weird POV pushing not acceptable by me or other editors.

"Why did you change russia to suzdalians and muscovites" obvious anachronism for that time, duh. Consensus is that there was no russia at that time period. Shahray (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not provide any source that says that the element was named after something that referred to Ukrainians at the time. Instead, there was just more WP:SYNTH and a refusal to drop the stick on the talk page. The other editor already told you your edits were off-topic and undue, but apparently there is never a good enough reason for your changes to be reverted. Mellk (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I did, multiple. Your unreasonable reverts were instantly denied for this, and criticised by other editors, do not attempt to bring a blame upon someone else. Shahray (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has agreed with your changes. Otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in a long back-and-forth on the talk page insisting on restoring the mention of Ukraine. None of the sources you used in your edits referred to the subject of the article. The only source you mentioned on the talk page was this blog article and propaganda piece. Mellk (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk and @Shahray, I strongly suggest that you stop arguing with each other here, as that is not likely to lead to a satisfactory resolution for either of you. Shahray, please stop marking substantial edits as "minor", as you've already been warned. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Very well, I won't mark them like that. Can also you please kindly tell Mellk to not revert all of my changes with summaries like "complete nonsense"? Shahray (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Even though there is an ANI discussion ongoing, Shahray decided to again restore their disputed changes on History of Russia. I have started a discussion on the talk page but rather than trying to discuss there, they insist on edit warring instead. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shahray, when someone has asked you to go to the talk page, please go to the talk page instead of reverting them and arguing in the edit summary. Please see WP:BRD. It's not BRBRBRD. Just BRD. And it's perfectly normal for pov-pushing edits to be sourced; claiming an edit has sources does not in any way mean it isn't non-npov. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have asked them on the talk page to undo all their changes, and I elaborated on the reasoning for reverting them, but they still refuse to self-revert. Instead, they demand that I first provide a complete explanation for every single change they made and why I oppose every change, then they will decide if they will self-revert specific changes.[10] They clearly do not understand BRD and they now claim I have not provided a reason for reverting them.[11] Mellk (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No Mellk, you don't understand fundamental principle of WP:BRD, which clearly states "If you revert, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page". You have been specific only about two sentences, anything else which you haven't given explanation for I shouldn't delete following this policy. Shahray (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I already told you that you made POV changes (as well as unsupported changes) and gave examples of this. You were just told above to please go to the talk page instead of reverting them and arguing in the edit summary, yet you are still trying to justify reverting. Mellk (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"POV changes" without specifications is as good as an edit summary "complete nonsense". You gave only two examples in talk page, in which I responded and undid those two correspondingly. Everything else I should not undo following the policy. Shahray (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shahray, if you think "POV changes" is no more explanation than "complete nonsense", and continue to fixate on the meanings of individual policies and the actions of individual editors, you are not going to have a good time here - here being both "in a contentious topic area" and "on Wikipedia". This is a collaborative project. The expectation here is that editors work together to achieve consensus when there is a dispute about what any particular article should say. That goes twice over for articles in contentious topics areas, about which you have already received a warning. Please reconsider your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They were reverted by a different editor on history of Ukraine. The other editor explained the problem (for example their use of a certain term) and told them explicitly to propose changes on the talk page and yet they still restored their disputed changes. At this point, they are just not listening and insistent on restoring their changes first. I also wrote on the talk page about the problems with their changes and yet they dismissed any concerns and simply restored their changes. Mellk (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice that I repeatedly asked this user to clarify what they mean by "POV-edits" here, and they continually denied, and repeatedly made requests that violate WP:BRD. This is also what they wrote:"You made more than a dozen changes to the wording. I do not need to list all these changes you made when you can take a look at the diff yourself and see what you changed. This is a waste of time". They consider self-clarification

"waste of time" and instead ask me to figure out what is going on inside their head. Once again they continue to make reverts in Ilya Muromets article that violate WP:BRD. Given that they stubbornly don't want to give any sort of explanation in the Talk page to me, you can advise them to refrain from such behaviour, and then we can have an actual conversation. Shahray (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You show no intention of working with other editors when you simply restore your edits after they have been challenged. Anyway, it is clear that your approach will not change. Mellk (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I work with other editors, while following your approach, you explicitly state that you won't give any further explanation for your reverts, and continue to violate Wikipedia policies. If you understood, I would advise you to self revert, and start to cooperate with others. Shahray (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shahray, I have looked, and I truly do not see strong evidence that you are committed to working with other editors. Please remember that the aim here is to achieve consensus, working together to arrive at the best and most neutral version of the article. If you find yourself stuck in a two-person dispute, as at Ilya Muromets, you may want to try going to WP:3O for an uninvolved editor to provide a third opinion. Other options are described at WP:DR. I will remind you again that you are editing in a contentious topic area, where Wikipedia's norms may be more strongly enforced, and within which single administrators may place editor restrictions such as topic bans, interaction bans, and revert restrictions. I am one such administrator. This is not a formal warning, but it may well be the last informal warning you will receive. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I already told you and showed examples that user Mellk doesn't want to reach consensus or continue further discussion, and instead makes reverts that violate WP:BRD and WP:REVERT (reverts with no specific explanation). If you want to solve this dispute, @Asilvering, you have to address this issue to Mellk, not me. In other cases I reached consensus without much of an issue, like in Ruthenium article and Bylina. Shahray (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Their latest comments to me include you are only mad about this because of your russian centric POV and referring to me as my guy. They also now restored their disputed edits completely even though I spent time explaining specifically the issues with their edits. Can we just get an indefinite block instead? I have wasted enough of my time with this editor already. Mellk (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Why won't you address how you violate WP:BRD and WP:Reverts? Why won't we create another report page for administrators that will be focused on you, your violation of this policies, and your POV problems? Because now you purposely refocus all attention on me, asking for block, while continuing to make unreasonable reverts, for Rus' people article, you once again only made explanation for Novgorod, and something about Ruthenia, you didn't tell anything about why you deleted Land of Rus' and other stuff, and in talk page you just told me to "bother other editors". Okay, maybe in Ilya Muromets article you explained something, but here in Rus people article barely anything. I restored the content according to basic policies, so you don't blame me. Shahray (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Mellk, please don't call someone's edits "complete nonsense", even if it is a strange, pov-pushing edit to make. But I'll also note that Mellk's reversions usually aren't brusque statements like "complete nonsense", and are often more explanatory. Those are fine. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realized soon after this that such edit summaries are generally not helpful. Mellk (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I had a few exchanges with the user in question on my talk page after reverting some of his edits. Attempts to explain some policies and/or make him understand why his changes violated NPOV were ignored, and there was no shortage of attempts to justify the changes with arguments that did not correspond to reality. Here, among other attempts to stress the Ukrainianness of the subject, he decided that he would alter the uncontroversial alphabetical order "Belarus, Russia and Ukraine" in a sentence remarking on his current status as a symbol in all three countries. In our discussion he attempted to justify that edit by claiming that in his opinion Ukraine should be first as Vladimir's trident was adopted as the country's coat of arms, ergo his biggest "legacy" is in Ukraine, and therefore takes priority. This is a debatable argument in itself, but while we were having this discussion he made this edit, where he again changes the order of things to push his PoV, this time a list of cities that bear Yaroslav's name. Here he put in last place a city located in Russia which also happens to be the largest and most important of the lot and, by his own logic, should have remained first.

While he did not revert (even though he said he would) after I objected, he jumped on to other articles. I told him that if he kept at it he would end up being reported, and here we are. I didn't do it myself because I don't have much time anymore, because I have seen much worse from much "older" and "respectable" users, and because I figured the edits were harmless enough. The edit mentioned by OP on History of Russia, however, is... troubling. A temporary TBAN might be in order. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how a topic ban here would help, especially a temporary one. Despite the ongoing ANI discussion, they are still restoring disputed edits and refusing to get consensus on the talk page first. I do not see why this kind of behavior would not extend to other topic areas. When they discuss on the talk page, they leave comments like "Lmao".[12] This kind of behavior is not really compatible with the nature of this project. Mellk (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, he is evidently a prolific editor, which could be a good thing, and his main problem seems to be an inability to edit constructively in a specific area (Ukraine-Russia), where they have an axe to grind. Perhaps if he were to contribute to other topics he would not struggle with these same issues. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Prolific" is the wrong term, I believe. Nearly all (if not all) of their edits consist of pro-Ukrainian POV-pushing. Mellk (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you to not involve modern politics into historical topics. If your main concerns is that this sourced statements somehow benefit Ukraine, then it raises further questions about the bias in your already unreasonable reverts. Shahray (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've given Shahray a 24hr block for edit warring. Other administrators are free to extend/alter the block as needed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo restored unreferenced edits from an account – User:RonCastillo1234, an account which is identical to the editor's account name.[13][14][15][16] Both accounts have been warned in their respective talk pages, with zero response from both accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

• Blocked newer account and warned the primary one. Star Mississippi 18:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Kobzar1917 was indefinitely blocked by ToBeFree on 18 August. In the discussion regarding their unblock request, they stated that they would discuss their edits on the talk page in the event that they have been reverted. As a result, they were unblocked on 26 August. Despite this, they refuse to get consensus on the talk page. The latest example is Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus'. They made an initial change on 25 September and have restored their change four times now. I reverted them and explained the reason for the reverts but they have used deceptive edit summaries like "unexplained deletion". I also started a discussion on the talk page but they are not discussing. The edit summary of their latest revert says "your personal opinion does not trump that of reliable sources", except they have already been told about WP:ONUS. Mellk (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• INDEFfed. Clearly has no interest in abiding by the promises around their unblock. Star Mississippi 18:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

TruthfulSpeech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pushing text not found in sources, non-reliable sources.
First edit:[17]
Edit war follows: [18] sources provided, first text is not in source, second source is unreliable.
Edits are discussed, no confirming quote nor reliability confirmation provided: User talk:TruthfulSpeech#Nazi Stepan Bandera - ManyAreasExpert , Talk:Stepan Bandera#Le Monde an unreliable source
Edit war continues: [19] .

Contentious topic alert [20] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to put a report, provide a report that's actually valid. Multiple people read the edit, read the sources and agreed that they're valid and the statements can be seen.

Anyone reading this report, go to my talk page and witness all of the arguments of @Manyareasexpert fail, as they're incorrect and he's simply attempting to portray someone from his nation as a hero. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Further, the sources @Manyareasexpert claims to be "unreliable" include "Le Monde" which is the largest and most reliable news source in France. However he fails to post any source that supports his claims of Bandera not involving himself with any Nazi behaviour, not even ones from Ukraine which presumably would have quite a large bias. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction, "One of the most reliable news sources in France"

Thanks TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

the sources @Manyareasexpert claims to be "unreliable" include "Le Monde"
Wrong, the issue is that LeMonde does not contain what you claim it does.

The second source, "peoplesdispatch", is an anonymous outlet with hidden credentials, is unreliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Does not claim what you claim it does."

We discussed this on my talk page, I gave you an exact quote from the LeMonde page i uploaded, and the quote i got from it, If you're unable to read and throw claims that have been already tackled, I apologise, however that's not my problem anymore. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

he's simply attempting to portray someone from his nation as a hero
Thank you for another personal attack. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not an attack, a statement which I claimed due to your clueless and unbacked arguments. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit war with text not corresponding to source continues [21] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Lord Ruffy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have been assuming good faith of this editor for a long time, but it has become clear that, after more than a year of contributing to Wikipedia, they continue to disrupt the encyclopedia due to their incompetence.
Hardly anything they write on talk pages makes sense,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] and most if not all of their edits to articles contain grammatical or spelling errors and proper nouns beginning with lower case letters.[30][31][32][33] Many edits of theirs are non-encyclopedic and rely on unreliable blog sites and online guides for sources.[34] They seem to be completely unaware of WP:Manual of Style.
They've created Shahid (Algeria), which also contained several errors, such as proper names starting with small letters, randomly conjoined words, and misspelled basic words. They even added French words such as "Littérature" and "Articles de journaux" for some reason. I tried to fix the page, but they insisted on edit warring and restoring their badly written version of the article[35] until they were blocked for violating WP:3RR. It seems to me that they're only on Wikipedia to push some sort of ethnic POV, often adding unsourced or anachronistic WP:OR.[36][37][38][39]
A week ago, the editor updated their user page to indicate that they're a new user, despite having created their account 13 months ago, which I find odd. I've noticed that they recently created an article in their sandbox, which seemed to lack grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. However, when I checked the content with this AI detector tool, I discovered that there is a 70.6% chance that they used AI to generate all of that text. Skitash (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Skitash, what action are you seeking here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncertain, but this disruption has been ongoing for quite some time. WP:CIR states that editors can be blocked from editing if needed. Also, isn't it prohibited to use AI on Wikipedia? I know of at least one editor that was blocked for doing so. Skitash (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to know what the OP's expectations are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe their actions, such as disregarding WP:CIR and WP:MOS, along with disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to push an ethnic POV, warrant a block. Skitash (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It technically isn't prohibited, although adding AI content to articles nearly always breaks a lot of other policies. Also, AI detector tools are notoriously unreliable, although that format (with a single weirdly formatted reference added at the end but not cited inline) is often indicative of either AI use, or of someone adding a reference without actually having used it as material. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the AI. Without having looked at any of their other editing, I'd say it is reasonably likely to be AI but not a total dead ringer. If their other editing tends to have grammar errors they've been warned for, I don't think it's all that unreasonable for them to have concluded that they should use AI to help them avoid those errors. They'd be wrong, of course, but it would be understandable. -- asilvering (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That sandbox draft isn't AI - it's almost exactly an uncredited Google Translate version of de:Hermann Frahm. If it goes into mainspace, it'll need an Interwiki link and a {{translated page}} acknowledgment. Narky Blert (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is AI, but evidently not the kind Skitash had in mind. -- asilvering (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Good morning everyone. Once again, I find myself having to defend myself against the accusations of a user who has accused me of incompetence. Despite the difficulties, I will try with all my strength to assume these accusations are made in good faith, even though I hope you can understand that is not easy for me.

Regarding the content:

The initial references lack solid arguments and seem like a last-minute collection intended to accuse me of something I don't quite understand. Specifically:

- [84], [85]: I speak here about the bias I perceive against the Berber language, which some users restrict from being used on en.wiki.

- [86]: I ask for clarification as to why one name is used instead of another.

- [87]: I didn’t think using a name in Berber would be an issue, as it is not original research but rather the use of a national language to express a name that also exists in Arabic.

- [88], [89], [90]: I don't see the problem here...

- [91]–[94]: Again, I don’t see any issue here either. If there’s a grammatical error, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to point it out on the talk page or fix it directly instead of opening a noticeboard? I hope there’s a valid reason for this.

Regarding [96], we’ve already discussed this: you still haven’t used the talk page to justify your changes, aside from the grammatical errors, most of which I corrected. I was blocked for 24 hours, even though you violated the 3RR rule without consequences. An admin from another wiki explained to me that I was wrong when I undid your edits on your talk page, thinking the rules were the same across all wikis, which I learned was not the case. For this, I apologize. However, regarding the "shahid" page, I don’t believe I did anything wrong. I asked you in good faith to discuss the issue on the talk page, but you continued to revert the edits. Nevertheless, I accepted the admins' decision.

As for the accusation of adding unsourced or anachronistic content, which you claim violates WP:NOR, not everything requires a source. For example, in the case of Grande Poste d'Alger: where are the sources about the style on the pages of Notre-Dame de Paris, Milan Cathedral, or the Florence Baptistery? None of these have sources, but you still demand them from me for everything I add, even when it’s something self-evident.

I updated my user page to indicate that I am a novice, because although I created the account over a year ago, I didn’t start using it until late August, when I was studying the manual and making small edits. Over time, I began creating new pages, perhaps with some errors, but other users, which I thank, corrected them. There are no other reasons behind this, and it would have been enough to check my edits to see that the account was not so active before.

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec-monthcounts/en.wikipedia.org/Lord%20Ruffy98?format=wikitext

Regarding the article I’m preparing in the sandbox, it’s still a work in progress and is based on the German version and external bibliographies. I don’t see any connection with AI usage, and frankly, I find this claim surprising, as there’s no reason for it. AI usage of 70%? It’s ironic, considering I haven’t used AI at all, but rather bibliographic sources.

It is also ironic that the person accusing me of engaging in "WP:BATTLEGROUND" behavior is the same person who reverts every one of my edits on the topic of "Berbers/Amazigh." To justify my ban, they cited edits that have no logical connection. If I’ve made mistakes, please point them out to me, but I don’t believe I have. I’ve always tried to engage in dialogue through the talk page, often without receiving a response.

On the ethnic/linguistic topic, another user has opened a discussion, to which I have contributed my opinion. This is an important issue, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. I won’t go into detail here, as this isn’t the appropriate place, but I encourage administrators and interested users to take a look. Many pages, starting with the one on Algeria, do not include Berber in the infobox, and I find this problematic as it overlooks the importance of the Berber community, which has been oppressed for a long time. Since 2016, Berber has been recognized as a national language, and as such, it should be included.

If someone have any questions to ask please tell me. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the accusation of adding unsourced or anachronistic content, which you claim violates WP:NOR, not everything requires a source. For example, in the case of Grande Poste d'Alger: where are the sources about the style on the pages of Notre-Dame de Paris, Milan Cathedral, or the Florence Baptistery? None of these have sources, but you still demand them from me for everything I add, even when it’s something self-evident.

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that three types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material: [...] material whose verifiability has been challenged. In this case, if another person challenges the verifiability of your edits, then yes, it absolutely needs a source. And something like architectural style is very much not self-evident, and usually stems from analysis by secondary sources.

Also, the style of Notre-Dame de Paris is literally sourced after the third sentence of the article. In the first paragraph of the lead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explain myself well, in which case I apologize. When I speak of requesting sources I mean a direct quote with the apex referring to the source in question.

When I speak of something self-evident I mean that a specific quote is not needed, even from a source already present in the text, for the single word; rather the information should either be present in the text or in the sources as in this case in the cases I cited.

As regards the Grande Poste d'Alger the source regarding the style is in the first source of the page placed at the end of the first paragraph. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"I don't see the problem here" This is the issue. While you do not see any problems with your writing, editors such as myself struggle to comprehend. Here, you wrote "That is not the case first of all cause judge others languages inappropriate the arabic version would have been removed too but that did not happened. Also it does mean a thing that in algeria the tifinagh is not the only offical one cause it's used in a lot of cases; road signs, names of companies, websites, even newspapers so this argumentation is pointless". Do you really expect other editors to understand what you wrote?

Regarding Shahid (Algeria), you claimed that I haven't used the talk page, when I clearly have. Also, why do I need to justify my copyediting efforts to correct errors in the article you created? I corrected several grammatical and spelling mistakes you introduced, such as "Martirs", "proclammation", "theirrelease", "Indipendence", and "algerian". However, you resorted to restoring these errors through edit warring, and you violated WP:3RR with four edits within a 24-hour period.

"the Berber community, which has been oppressed for a long time" tells me you're here to promote some sort of ethnic POV. The decision to not include Berber text revolves around an RfC that took place in Talk:Algeria. It was decided that such text shouldn't be included because no Berber script has been officially chosen yet, not because of oppression. Skitash (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that you're the only one who had trouble understanding my comment. Even if that weren't the case, you could have simply asked me to clarify or correct it, but instead, you chose to attack me directly. That's not a trustful behavior.

You didn’t go to the talk page to seek a constructive discussion, but only because you had already initiated a dispute resolution, as is clearly shown by the timing. You weren’t interested in discussing the topic. As I’ve already mentioned, I corrected some of the grammatical mistakes you’re so focused on, but my main criticism was about the use of terms like “Mujahideen ,” whose meaning in the context discussed is different from its religious connotation. I even provided a specific source with the relevant page to help you understand my point, but, just as with the kaftan issue (which isn’t worth revisiting), it seems you completely disregard the content of my edits, as if they hold no value.

You didn't continued the discussion on the talk page after i get blocked and i was waiting for a reply for days but nothing happened.

As for the language issue, the discussion you referred to dates back five years, and it seems to me that many didn’t agree with the outcome. It would be appropriate to revisit the terms, as I don’t believe the choice of writing system is a sufficient reason not to include at least one. This is commonly done in most other wikis; I don’t see why it shouldn’t be done here.

Your accusation of promoting some sort of ethnic WK:POV have no basis as my point is always the same, the use of a national language at the same level as Arabic without placing a preference.

Apart from these accusations, if I were in bad faith I would have done the same thing with you a long time ago but in reference to an Arab point of view. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"It seems that you're the only one who had trouble understanding my comment." Should we ask the others here if they did?

"I corrected some of the grammatical mistakes you’re so focused on" "some" is the key word here. Why didn't you correct the rest? Ironically, in your edit where you claimed to have corrected grammar, you've introduced several new grammatical and spelling errors.

"I don’t believe the choice of writing system is a sufficient reason not to include at least one" Which one would that be and why do you consider it better than all the other scripts?

"I would have done the same thing with you a long time ago but in reference to an Arab point of view" Contesting your unwarranted and badly written (often unsourced) edits is not POV-pushing. Skitash (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we ask the others here if they did?

If anyone had trouble understanding, they would have pointed it out to me and asked for clarification.

P.S.: This behavior seems very much like bullying to me.

Why didn't you correct the rest?

Maybe because I missed them? I would have corrected them later if, instead of starting an edit war, you had discussed the issue with me on the talk page specifically the use of certain words like "Mujahideen," which, in my opinion, made no sense to change. You continue to base your arguments on a couple of oversights, which don't seem like such a big issue to me. These could have been easily corrected with a subsequent edit. How should I interpret your continuous attacks?

Which one would that be and why do you consider it better than all the other scripts?

It’s not up to me to decide, but rather all the users together. Personally, I think neo-Tifinagh should be the primary script included, as it is a writing system based on the ancient Libyan-Berber language and has been spreading as a Berber language script over the last century. I would also add the Latin version in parentheses (as is often done with Arabic words), which is the most commonly used by those who do not understand the neo-Tifinagh alphabet. The Arabicized version is rarely used, so I’m fine with not including it. However, if other users think it's important, we can discuss it.

Contesting your unwarranted and badly written (often unsourced) edits is not POV-pushing

My edits are neither "poorly written" nor unsourced. This is ironic, especially considering the mess you made on the qashabiya page, where you added no solid or academic sources about the Arab origin and rejected those that support the Berber one.

If this isn’t POV-pushing, I don’t know what is. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact Ruffy, several of those posts read as near-gibberish to me. And bear in mind, I have a formal background in comparative linguistics and translation, and a lot of related and unrelated practical experience working with people of varying degrees of facility with their second languages. By which I mean, I've a fairly decent ability to work out what people are trying to say. And yet I could only give vague guesses for a couple of your posts. To be bluntly honest, I don't know what is going on here, but there is something fishy in the massive gulf between the content in some of those diffs and how you are speaking here--which is perfectly fluent and even somewhat ornate and elegant English.

I don't know if you are bouncing between different LLMs and landed on a superb one, or if your account is actually being used by multiple users, but I have a very hard time squaring "That is not the case first of all cause judge others languages inappropriate the arabic version would have been removed too" and "Regarding [96], we’ve already discussed this: you still haven’t used the talk page to justify your changes, aside from the grammatical errors, most of which I corrected." The difference in the fluidity, use of punctuation to appropriately align subordinate clauses, and overall cogency is profound. Taken with the rest of the evidence here, I have an extremely hard time believing you are being entirely on the level with us. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. If you need any explanation about any post you didn't understood, tell me and i'll try to explain it more clearly and express myself better.

No, my account is not used by multiple users as it's not a fair thing to do and it doesn't seems to me a good move. I also, don't like the idea of ​​someone using my profile.

For my persective ,it depends from which of my edits you've seen, but i understand your point. I'm not the best at english so when i don't know how to exprime something, i translate it by tools like Google translate. Although this, in a certain way, I don't know whether to be happy for the compliment or sad because you doubt me. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, like the earlier example, I think this second is AI, in that it's Google Translate. I think that's what Lord Ruffy98 is saying in the comment above mine. @Lord Ruffy98, I'm sorry, I do agree that your comments are at times difficult to understand. We also really do not want people translating content from one wiki to another using Google Translate. At least in my personal opinion, I think translations should be done into an editor's native language - so, going by your Babel boxes, for you that would be Italian and Arabic (I don't know if there's a Kabyle wikipedia). It seems to me that you could make valuable contributions on it- and ar-wiki by translating articles from en-wiki. Perhaps you could do that instead? -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion; i'm sorry if any of my comments were not completely understandable. If there are any incomprension you want me to make clear please tell me.

Yes i already doing that. But i would like to clarify my execution process, that I do not want to be misinterpreted. I do not, use tools like Google Translate to translate entire pages or to translate the text of my comments, into English.

As for the translation of pages, I have so far effectuate translations between English and Italian. In the article under consideration, I noticed the main use of only one source (there are 2 others but little used) that I translated with GT and therefore I used those as a starting point to inform myself about it. If reading sources in other languages ​​is not considered a good method, I will stop doing it. However, I would like it to be clear that the tool is not used as a mere translator. In fact, my intention to increase the sources is becoming longer precisely because the sources available in English are few and most are in German. My intention was to insert it as a draft so that other editors who understand German well and who are experts in science can evaluate whether the article is suitable for publication.

As for its use in my comments, it is rare and I use it more as a dictionary for when I can't figure out how to write certain words in an English sentence. I didn't think this would be a problem.

If someone thinks that I used it in a different way from what i explained, i'm sorry for that, I don't know how to change their mind, as I have been completely honest and I don't think that some grammatical errors can be a reason for incompetence on my part and to request a ban.

Beyond everything i will certainly continue to work on improving my language. Thanks again. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's quite fine. It's very normal to use google translate in the way you've described and that's not a problem. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, alright; thank you for allowing me to resolve the misunderstanding and make things clearer. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby:,@Asilvering:,@Narky Blert:,@Liz:, I taked the information from here mainly 1, but i have still to finish it. Yes that was the plan as some sources I took them from the German version but since it has a small amount of sources i wanted to find something else and then finish the work; please have patience, i'll finish it soon( unless the accuser manages to get me banned). Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lord Ruffy98: Ah! that explains the anglicised Blohm & Voß instead of the German Blohm + Voß. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie is an excellent source; I've relied on myself. I applaud your plan of looking for additional sources. When you move the article into mainspace, you'll need to make the Interwiki link, but should not add the translated page template. (From an enwiki POV, I raise an eyebrow at how close the German article is to that source - but that doesn't affect your work, if it's properly referenced.) Happy editing! Narky Blert (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)-

Thank you so much, I truly appreciate your kind words.

May I ask why you believe it's unnecessary to add the translation template in this case? Is it because the majority of the article is based on a single source rather than being a direct translation of the German version? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lord Ruffy98: Yes. You'll need to edit the translation a bit, to put it into your own words; nothing major, there are only so many ways to present facts, especially when there's a historical narrative to follow; but to avoid the WP:COPYVIO problem I hinted at about the German article. Best, Narky Blert (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much for the advice. I will treasure it Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)