User Talk: Cdjp1

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

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(28d)
| archive=User talk:Cdjp1/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=3
| maxarchivesize=150K
| archiveheader={{Archive}}
| minthreadsleft=4
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
{{Archive box|

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

}}

Your nomination of Colonisation of Hokkaido ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Colonisation of Hokkaido ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Colonisation of Hokkaido/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mupper-san -- Mupper-san (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Monster Crown Sin Eater Changes

Saw the reverted change. Though i know it wasnt perfect, it wasn't to a fandom wiki, but an official one. ~2026-32603-90 ↗ (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:The part where the game doesn't have an article on this wiki, i get. But at the same time, most of the official dev comments for this sort of thing are on discord rather than a platform such as twitter.
:also, im one of the main editors for the official Monster Crown wiki, if you needed to know who made that edit at all. ~2026-32603-90 ↗ (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::@~2026-32603-90 I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What do you think I reverted and where? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::This edit ↗. @~2026-32603-90, there are hundreds of monsters in Monster Crown ↗; it's not that useful for a reader to know on every mythological creature article that "it appears in a video game". It's only useful if there are secondary sources ↗ that discuss the monster as it appears in that game. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Ah, ok, thank you for clarifying that Reconrabbit. So to answer ~2026-32603-90, while you have provided a citation for it appearing in the game, it being a ''notable'' appearance of the creature in popular media would require that it is a notable work. This first indicator would be that the game is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, which it doesn't. Secondly, we would need WP:RS ↗ that provide the information for us to cite. As the citation provided is to the Fandom wiki for the game, it is WP:UGC ↗ and therefore not a RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Mark Kern

Hi, as the most active editor of the Mark Kern article, would you be willing to read what I have written on the talk page and weigh in? Ostip (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:If the information is wrong per the sources, change the information. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::I made some changes, but most of them were reverted with the message "Partial revert. Sourcing, WP:SYNTH, and WP:FRINGE issues". Ostip (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Spamming the talk page with a dozen overlapping discussions is not going to ingratiate you to other editors. Looking at the reversion, I can see the concerns of the reverting editor. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::It's not my intention to spam the page, I tried to organize them into their own sections. Should I collapse all of the topics into a single discussion thread? Ostip (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

collapsed my comments

The points themselves were mine. English is not my first language, so I used an LLM to help translate and polish the wording. As the last version I edited which I rewrote, could you explain what specific parts led you to classify the comments as llm genetated? '''Lavender Poison'''※Leaf 19:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing ↗ alongside your admittance ↗ that you used LLMs in these comments. Don't use LLMs to {{tqq|polish}} your writing, as this can and does introduce all the problems of LLM generated text. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::I understand that my admission of using an LLM is relevant. My question was narrower: which specific features of the revised comments led you to conclude that the comments as a whole should be treated as LLM-generated rather than language-assisted?
::I am asking because the underlying arguments and the selection of issues were mine. If the concern is particular wording, structure, or passages, it would be helpful to identify them rather than relying only on the fact that an LLM was used at some stage. '''Lavender Poison'''※Leaf 19:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cdjp1#c-Cdjp1-20260710191600-Werran-20260710191500 ↗ -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I understand the concern under WP:AITALK, but this thread had already developed into a substantive discussion with several replies.
::::WP:TALK says that, where a worthwhile conversation has already started, it may be left open. Since other editors had engaged with the actual article issues, collapsing the whole thread also hides their comments and interrupts an ongoing content discussion.
::::Could you explain why you considered collapse preferable here, rather than leaving the existing discussion open and addressing any concerns about my original wording separately? '''Lavender Poison'''※Leaf 19:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|had already developed into a substantive discussion with several replies}}, not it hadn't https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tibet&oldid=1363521080 ↗ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xinjiang&oldid=1363521139 ↗ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong&oldid=1363521277 ↗. You may be confusing my collapsing, with another editor's collapsing. Walls of text that are subject to hallucinations and tired and/or nonsensical arguments are, simply put, a waste of your fellow editors' time. You say you have a near-native level of English, so use it, and do not expect a statistics engine to {{tqq|polish}} your writing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::You are right that I confused the two sets of collapses. I withdraw that point.
::::::“Statistics engine” is not a substantive response. If you believe the comments contained hallucinations, factual errors, or incoherent reasoning, identify them. Otherwise, the label proves nothing.
::::::The issues raised were about wording, attribution, and due weight. Those should be answered on the basis of sources and policy, not dismissed through rhetoric. '''Lavender Poison'''※Leaf 20:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::see response ↗. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for the lecture on writing quality. It's always enlightening when an editor dismisses substantive points by labeling them "hallucinations" and "nonsensical" without actually addressing a single one of them.
::::::::"Statistics engine" is certainly a creative way to avoid engaging with the actual sourcing and policy issues I raised. If my transferred drafts bother you so much, feel free to improve them with your evidently superior, purely organic prose—rather than just collapsing threads and declaring victory.
::::::::I remain open to discussing the content based on reliable sources, as Wikipedia policy encourages, instead of meta-complaints about tools. Looking forward to your detailed, human-crafted rebuttal on the wording, attribution, and due weight concerns. '''Lavender Poison'''※Leaf 20:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::You seem really hung up on {{tqq|statistics engine}}, do you know what it means? As you seem to be labouring under the impression it said something that it did not?
:::::::::{{tqq|Looking forward to your detailed, human-crafted rebuttal on the wording, attribution, and due weight concerns}}, why provide a verbose response when a single word answer will suffice for the respect and consideration you have given to other editors on this matter. No.
:::::::::Now I would appreciate the decency that you stop trying to argue this nonsensical point on my talk page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tps}} Checked contribs. This account is almost inside WP:NOTHERE ↗ territory. Immediately starting this much arguments with no other contributions is definitely one way to start one's editing career. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 21:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)