User Talk: ActivelyDisinterested

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{ivmbox
|css="border:2px solid var(--border-color-destructive, #f54739);"
|image=40px ↗
|text='''Please don't template me!''' ↗ If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below '''in your own words'''.}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age = 672
| archiveprefix = User talk:ActivelyDisinterested/Archive
| maxarchsize = 150000
| header = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads = 5
| numberstart = 6
| format = %%i
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=28}}

Tips for help

I didn't really think about registering a user so far I just thought it was popping in and edit but apparently there's chaos from my tries to improve the page.
Now, the user
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MannaHontanna
Is reverting back and adding back all the ai content etc and other content that was agreed on to be removed.
It seems to be a user created today, with the exact same focus on pages as the user
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Assaultim#Ai_content
As I said, I have very limited idea about how wiki works and don't really wish to be engaged in longer things just wanted to improve a little bit where I saw obvious errors. But this situation feels a bit strange are there any way to stop the user from restoring the air content all the time? ~2026-33106-38 ↗ (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

:It shouldn't work the way that talk page is currently working, nor the way that the article is being edited. I suggest you stop editing the article for the moment, there are rules about edit warring and you could get yourself in trouble (see WP:3RR ↗). -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 16:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:: ~2026-33324-56 ↗ (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I totally agree. I'll just let it be for the moment, letting other Members in. if I feel I have energy or interest to edit in the future maybe I'll get an account. For the moment I have been waiting through my computer and phone. I'll just let it be and let others give their opinions. It's exhausting for me too. Maybe I have energy in some weeks or months ~2026-33324-56 ↗ (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Just think that I wouldn't be super active if I get an account, actually the reason for my involvement was firstly not the ai content, I just really dislike things without sources and sources that says something completely different from the wiki text (which unfortunately is more common with ai created content). I've noticed that on an array of different articles (not just on diaspora articles) for example about history, culture, or lists etc, just haven't cared about editing before. I read Wikipedia quite often, (as most people, so guess) but now I realize how difficult it is. I thought it was as easy as pop in and taking away obviously wrong content, but appearantly not. Anyway, I apologize if I caused any inconveniences. And as you said on the talk pages. Will cool down, stay away and then look at it fresh later and let others members figure something out and give evaluations too. ~2026-33324-56 ↗ (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I edited for a long time before making an account, but making an account does have it's benefits. I think you've been unfortunate as the article you edited has had a lot of disruption in the past, and you've just stepped into it. I found doing little things at first helped when I started, there's lots of things that take time to learn beyond just simple editing. If you come across unsourced content best practice is to try and find sources for it, and then either tag it with {{tl|citation needed}}. Only removing it if the content is problematic or just wrong (no source could ever be found for it). -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 16:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Right. How long should the unsourced content tag sit or there's no hard rule? It's not uncommon to see the tag on kinda controversial topics and biographies of people. So if no source could be find then okay to remove quickly or should it still be discussed on the talk pages first? Or if it's obviously off topic should be removed promptly or discussed on talk pages or is it from case to case? ~2026-33324-56 ↗ (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Anything controversial and unsourced in an article about a ''living'' person should be removed immediately, see WP:BLPREMOVE ↗. For everything else there no hard rule, the less important or controversial it is the longer you should give it. Anyone restoring unsourced content has to provide a source when they do so, see WP:BURDEN ↗. In general if you get push back about an edit you made then discussion is always the key. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, be bold in your editing but also listen to the concerns of other editors. -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 19:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

removing warning of edit war

I noticed you had quite a few edit war warnings, but you chose to remove them from your profile here

bad faith removal imo ~2026-34448-32 ↗ (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} First, please take note of WP:AGF ↗. And second, editors can remove notices from their own talk page at any time, with very few exceptions (such as declined unblock requests). There is nothing bad faith about removing content from your own talk page. Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 06:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:I've had a couple of bad faith edit warring notices, as I've picked up a couple of troll followers over the years. Everything
:is still there in the page edit history, and I'm happy to answer any questions about any specific post. As to removals any editor can maintain there user talk page as they wish, except for a very few specific points, see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME ↗. -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 11:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about the pending Omniglot RSN/RfC closure

Hi AD, I hope this message finds you well. I am just looking for some clarification on what you noted about the closure of the RfC that I opened.

You stated that {{tq|The discussion may get archived while it waits, but if that happens it will be unarchived when it's closed.}} It has now been archived, and I noted this for the closer on WP:CR#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Omniglot ↗.

Does this simply mean that the closer will move the discussion out of the archive and back to the noticeboard to perform the closure, or will it be duplicated so that it remains in the original archive location as well as a new one, or something else?

Thanks for your time and take care. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:It will be moved back to the main page when it is closed not copied. As the header at WP:Close request ↗ says "{{tq|Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that by restoring the discussion from the archive as they close it.}}" This involves moving the discussion from the archive, rather than just making a new copy on RSN.
:BTW Thanks for noting the archiving at WP:CR ↗. -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 18:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hello, how exactly began resolution on a problem that there is basically no existing guideline on overcitation template? You correctly pointed out that such thing should be implemented. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:You going to have to give something to go on. Where did I say this and when? The current understanding of over citation comes from the basic premise of WP:V ↗. The purpose of a reference is for verifying that the content can be sourced. If one reference can do that then any more are unnecessary. That probably needs to be explained more clearly. In contentious situation it may be needed to include a few more, to show that it's the clearly held consensus of sources. But more than that aren't required by WP:V ↗, and references only exist to allow verification. -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 22:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thats very general consideration. How can be such verifiability premise proven itself against so called bundling citations used by some users, and that it is also mentioned in some guildelines? ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The citations can still be useful, and may contain details that could still help to improve the article. Bundling is one way of solving the formatting issue that over citation causes without the lose of information. Basically you don't need to add that many citations but if they've been added throwing them away risks the loss of something useful, so bundling can be the right option. -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 07:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Origo

I think you are better suited for making proper discussions. So I won't repeat it, for I am not confident anymore (but I guess the option list was one of my blunders). But it – along with several other sites, e. g. Magyar Nemzet and Mandiner – is opinionated and leans right-wing (especially post-2015). Ripost was opinionated as well, and – like Origo – had many sensationalistic articles.

The reason why I use past tense for Ripost: Ripost ceased publishing on 2026-06-15, the latest article was published that day at 18:30, 71 minutes after the announcement of its closure. The website is still accessible as of 09:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:Looking at your concerns from the closed thread on RSN ↗, there a few things to think about. I'll do this out of order, I'll explain why when I get to it. Your first point was a out their bias, and that they might require attribution. This would be correct for anything that's opinion, as opinion should be attributed (see WP:RSOPINION ↗). But it might not always be the case, as facts are either right or wrong. For facts they could be reliable, as bias is not a factor in reliability (see WP:RSBIAS ↗). The third point was about headlines, reports about the distant past, and predictions about the future. First headlines should always just be ignored, they are never reliable no matter the source (see WP:RSHEADLINES ↗). Predictions about the future are covered by WP:CRYSTALBALL ↗, basically unless they're from an expert source they should be ignored and I doubt Origu.hu would qualify as an expert source. Finally when it comes to the past academic sources should be used, and if a mass media source disagrees with that academic work it should be discarded. The last two point I touch on before moving on are about celebrity gossip and bylines. Celebrity gossip doesn't make a source unreliable, but isn't the kind of thing that should be included in Wikipedia's articles. As to bylines it's true that better quality sources tend to use them, but there are many good quality sources that don't use them. So it's not a clear cut issue when it comes to judging the quality of a source. You did raise a couple of points that I think you should take back to RSN. I think you should start a new section about these, but just a normals discussion as you would on any other talk page. You mentioned that the have 'lost many procedures', does this mean the have been rebuked by a press regulator or lost court case about their reporting? If so it's well worthwhile explaining the details, and linking any reporting of the cases. Reliable sources ↗ are meant to have "{{tq|a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}". If Origu.hu are continually being called into question about their reporting then that's obviously not true. The other thing is posting about conspiracy theories. If they're promoting conspiracy theories you should link their reports and if one exists the Wikipedia article about the conspiracy theory. The short version of all this is that I think you should start a new thread at WP:RSN ↗, but this time just a normal discussion like this one. You should forget about everything but the details of the many procedures they lost and when they posted about conspiracy theories, and when you do you should include links to report about the procedure they lost and their conspiracy theories reports. Is this helpful? If you have any questions please do just ask. -- LCU '''ActivelyDisinterested''' ''«@» °∆t ↗°'' 12:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)