User Talk: CommonsKiwi

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

February 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Shinkansen ↗! However, adding a bare URL ↗ is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot ↗. It is preferable to use proper citation templates ↗ when citing sources ↗, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation ↗. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{tl|cite web}} template to cite a web page:
: <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.</syntaxhighlight>
which displays ''inline ↗'' in the running text of the article as:
:Lorem ipsum{{fake ref|1}} dolor sit amet.
and displays under '''References''' as:
#^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac ↗". ''Ask a Question''. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations: try the Citer tool ↗, or in the wikitext editor ↗, try the reFill tool ↗, and in the Visual Editor ↗, the reference dialog ↗ can convert some bare urls into a full citation.
Once again, thanks for adding references to articles.  Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 11:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

:Hi this was a deliberate decision. The automatic citation generator in the visual editor cannot handle PDFs, and the "Website" template didn't seem appropriate for a document. What template would you suggest? CommonsKiwi (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::Cite Web does still work just fine for online citations - indeed it automatically detects them and displays a PDF icon next to it. As an example:
::<code><nowiki>{{cite web |url=https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/ir/factsheets/_pdf/factsheets2025-02-01.pdf |title=Tokaido Shinkansen |publisher=JR Central}}</nowiki></code> displays as ''{{cite web |url=https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/ir/factsheets/_pdf/factsheets2025-02-01.pdf |title=Tokaido Shinkansen |publisher=JR Central}}'' (italics mine)
::Note that I don't speak Japanese, so that's my best approximation based on the latin text I can see! Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 11:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Ok, thanks. I will update the article. It is a bit confusing that this citation type is labelled "Website" in the visual editor. "Website" generally refers to an HTML webpage, not any file accessed over the internet. CommonsKiwi (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Aye… Visual Editor has… issues! Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 12:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Previous Accounts

Please can you declare what previous accounts you have used? If this is a legitimate clean start you can email me or email the arbitration committee as they keep a register of approved clean starts. Thanks. Spartaz ''Humbug!'' 05:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, I only ever remember creating one previous account that I used for two(?) edits. I don't think I have access to it anymore anyway, it was several years ago. Do you still want an email? This seems like a weird thing to be worried about, so I am wondering if there is something else you are concerned with? CommonsKiwi (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
::Actually, I have been through quite a few temporary accounts (due to frequently cleared cookies), could this be related? CommonsKiwi (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:After a quick read of WP:Clean start ↗, I can say this is definitely not a clean start.
::{{tq|A clean start or fresh start is when a user stops using an old account to start fresh with a new account.}}
:I did not stop using an old account to start fresh with this account. In the past I have preferred to edit as an IP/temporary account, but I decided to create this account so I could upload to Wikimedia commons and (eventually) be able to edit protected and semi-protected articles. Further, I do not believe I have ever created a negative reputation on any of my IP/temporary accounts.
::{{tq|You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking adminship or similar functionary positions. Failure to do so may be considered deceptive, and be poorly received by the Wikipedia community.}}
:Given I am not applying for anything, I'm not sure how this aligns with your second statement, maybe the page needs updating.
:Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
::No it's fine, you have addressed my concerns. There is always a problem with banned users registering accounts to participate in AFDs and while your account doesn't have that edit profile I was impressed your first edit was a table bearing in mind that after 20 years and 50k+ edits I am guaranteed to mess that edit up first time. Spartaz ''Humbug!'' 11:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I have previous IP/temporary account experience with tables (and use the preview button), so that's might be why. I can assure you I have always participated in AFDs in good faith. CommonsKiwi (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Lol, well you do better than this old codger. Spartaz ''Humbug!'' 11:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Lithium iron phosphate battery voltage

Hi CommonsKiwi, I noticed you reverted my edit on LiFePO4 batteries as 'spammy'. I apologize if the tone was off. My intention was to provide a helpful voltage reference for users. Could you advise how I can rephrase this to be more encyclopedic and neutral? Johnchow24 (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

BRD

25px|alt=icon ↗ Your recent '''b'''old ↗ edit was '''r'''everted. Let us now '''d'''iscuss ↗ this on the talk page ↗. This procedure is known as the BRD ↗ cycle. Please don't edit war ↗ by reinstating the edit. Let's see if we can find a consensus ↗ or request a third opinion ↗ if we remain in disagreement. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:Which edit is this? It's a bit lazy to just copy-paste a template like this without adding any details. CommonsKiwi (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:I assume this is regarding Exact Audio Copy ↗? That was intended as WP:BRR ↗, though I now see it falls under the second bulletpoint (so was not applicable). You can see from my edit summary that I started a discussion on their talk page ('''d'''iscuss). In the future, I'll try to start similar discussions on the article talk page instead. CommonsKiwi (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:Are you perhaps able to provide a third opinion? The discussion is on the talk page ↗. CommonsKiwi (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Careful adding automated slop as references

{{disdis|~2026-27266-15|spi=Raxythecat}}
<s>In Exact Audio Copy you added a reference written by a barrista in 2024 named best Rippers of 2026. Come on. Pay attention to what you are adding, don't add autogenerated web pages. They aren't reliable. ~2026-27266-15 ↗ (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)</s>

:Do you have any evidence it was "autogenerated" (I assume you mean by written by an LLM)? TechRadar seems to be generally considered reliable. Please see my reply on the talk page ↗. CommonsKiwi (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:As you have inadvertently pointed out, the article has basically identical snapshots ↗ as far back as 2019 on the Wayback Machine, so cannot possibly be AI generated. CommonsKiwi (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

DePROD of Wikipedia:Explanation ↗

Hi. I removed the prod tag that you added to Wikipedia:Explanation ↗ because {{tl|prod}} cannot be used in the project namespace, instead it is only for main namespace (articles) and files. If you want to do something with that page, you can either boldly redirect it, or bring it to MfD ↗ for discussion. All the best! Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:Sorry about that, I had used the template previously, so I only skimmed the documentation ↗ and missed that nuance. Thanks for letting me know! CommonsKiwi (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Stats

Special:Diff/1351566052/1352287580 ↗ - I would appreciate it if you would not spread false information. The counts are completely accurate. You are misreading that discussion. -- '''Green''''''C''' 03:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks for your message. What false information was I spreading? Before your recent edits, the page used the {{tl|NUMARCHIVES}} template, that seemed to call values from the 'archivetodayurls' cell in exturls.tab ↗ (a page that is updated by your bot). What I was wondering was: why did this value change between the February ↗ and March ↗ revisions (689,987 -> 247,591), but not between the March ↗ and April ↗ ones (247,591 -> 247,591). It seemed like something was broken, and the conversation seemed linked, at least to a user who was not familiar with the technical side of Wikipedia.
:I'm sorry if the conversation was not relevant, I definitely could have misunderstood something. However, claiming "The counts are completely accurate" and then completely changing them ↗ is a strange thing to do. CommonsKiwi (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
:@GreenC Could you please clarify: what information was false (was the conversation just irrelevant), and were the statistics actually accurate? Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
::{{green|What information was false}}. The tag you added (Special:Diff/1351566052/1352287580 ↗) that says {{green|counting is broken}}. I don't know where you got that idea from, but that conversion does not say that. -- '''Green''''''C''' 16:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:::My conclusion that the counting was broken (not being updated) is explained in my first reply, and came before finding the talk page thread. I thought the thread was relevant because it mentioned your bot stopped updating a table of statistics, which sounded a lot like what was happening to exturls.tab ↗. I see that I could have made the template reason much clearer (e.g. 'link counts are no longer accurate because the underlying statistic are not being updated, perhaps this thread is related'), sorry for that. It sounds we agree that the link count was in fact broken at the time? Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Yeah, during a period of less than 24hrs, one day, it was updating slower than the normal due to WMF API slowness, updates are normally about 6 times a day. And on that particular day, there was a problem, not all 6 updates got done. I don't recall maybe it was 3 or 4 updates that day. That's not "broken". If I want to update the stats 1 or 2 or 3 times a day, based on my resources and other issues, that's my prerogative as the bot operator. The stats were still displaying, and are still accurate for that time stamp. You put that banner on the page for 6 continuous days saying the states were broken, and they never were, it was false information. -- '''Green''''''C''' 04:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|You put that banner on the page for 6 continuous days saying the states were broken, and they never were, it was false information.}} This is about data.tab ↗, right? Not exturls.tab ↗. Ok, that's fair, I misread the conversation, and my wording did imply that data.tab was broken, even if that was not my intention. I was only trying to say that the link counts on the Archive.today guidance ↗ were not updating properly (had remained static since March), which was true. Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

{{disdis|Johnny Joeson|spi=Raxythecat}}
<s>I see that your recent contributions mirror mine. Why are you following me around? I would like for you to cease. If you would like to pair up with me as a team or something, say it. Otherwise, your behavior is concerning. Johnny Joeson (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)</s>

:WP:HOUNDING ↗
:{{tq|Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. '''This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor.'''}}
:It is true that I have been monitoring your edits, but I have been doing so because I believe your are often overzealous in your removal of content and sources. I believe this is a constructive reason, and there is no malicious intent. I only revert a small portion of your removals, and I try to provide clear reasoning in the edit summaries.
:I don't know what you mean by 'pair up as a team', I haven't heard of this practice on Wikipedia before. Unfortunately, I am quite busy at the moment, so wouldn't have the time for this. If I did, you would see me making more general edits to Wikipedia, like usual.
:Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::<s>You have been adding low quality sources, which is not helping this project. Stop following me. If you think I am disruptive, report me. Start looking for independent reliable sources instead of closely related sources. Johnny Joeson (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)</s>
:::If you have concerns with specific sources I have added, could you please tell me here? I would like to know, so I can have a second look and maybe re-evaluate. Please don't make false claims though, like you did regarding TechRadar on the Talk:Exact Audio Copy ↗ page.
:::I don't want to report you because I don't think things have reached that level. Plenty of your edits are fine and a lot of the content you remove is probably better gone. I am concerned specifically because some of your removals are poorly justified, and don't meaningfully improve the articles.
:::Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
::::<s>You have been adding primary sources. Software is not inherently notable. If nobody has written anything independent and indepth, the article needs to go. Johnny Joeson (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)</s>
:::::You are correct that primary sources should not be used to prove notability. However, content within articles can, and sometimes should, be attributed to primary sources. I do not believe I have ever used primary sources to prove notability. Do you have any specific examples?
:::::Regarding notability ↗: as discussed on Wikipedia, it is "a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own '''article'''", thus is not directly applicable to whether specific content should be included within an article. Wikipedia has separate policies for this, for example, WP:NOTACHANGELOG ↗, which you have cited in some of your edit summaries. CommonsKiwi (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Aggressive editing

I must confess that I am disturbed by the pattern of your recent edits. I came across them first when, without any attempt to generate concensus, you moved 78K out of Lithium-ion battery ↗ to Lithium-ion battery components ↗. Considering how important that article is this struck me as odd. According to your logs you have 558 edits, and I see nothing in a global log. You state above in response to a question by Spartaz that you have not had previous accounts, but have made some IP edits. However such a major edits plus other things such as warning User talk:Juni Freeman for LLM, reformatting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat ↗, reverting edits you argue are LLM and removing PRODs strongly indicate significant more experience than you state you had to Spartaz. These are more consistent with someone who has made more than 10K edits.

Can you please explain why you made such a major edit to Lithium-ion battery ↗ without first seeking concensus. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

:I made the split because the article was very long ↗ (over 11k words) and is, in my view, in quite a bad state. By splitting it I have made the parent more readable, and simplified clean up since it's easier to fix two short articles than one long one (or it least it seems so to me). This was a bold split because I thought it would be uncontroversial. I note that Wikipedia:Splitting ↗ doesn't seem to have specific guidelines on when splits can be made boldly. Further, the history section of Lithium-ion battery ↗ had been split ↗ uncontroversially in the past, and that the new Lithium-ion battery components ↗ article (3260 words according to DYK check) is already above the 95th percentile ↗ of article by length.
:I am getting pretty annoyed by suggestions that because I show basic levels of competence, I must have a very long edit history. People say to RTFM ↗, and I actually try to. I don't see what is so technically challenging about a split, besides the smaller considerations like not breaking citations, which you may notice I did mess up!
:If you actually have a good reason to object to the split, please start a merge AfD, or whatever. I am obviously likely to argue against, but you might have some good points that others find convincing.
:To your other points:
:* 'Reformatting' the Raxythecat investigation was just me adding bullets to and indenting my own comments so the formatting matched the 'Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments' section. I don't see how this could raise any concerns.
:* Is there are reason I should not have warned User:Juni Freeman? Genuine question. FYI, this ↗ was the edit that motivated it.
:* Identifying LLM text is something you can learn outside of Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that someone needs 10k edits to learn how to remove bad content?
:* Again, what is difficult about removing a PROD? It is a huge red banner that includes specific instruction and links on how to remove it.
:Sorry, this reply is kind of aggressive, but this is genuinely becoming quite annoying. If you have concerns with any of my edits or behaviour please tell me so I can try and address it. This speculation is just silly. CommonsKiwi (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:Seriously, if this concern is motivated by my behaviour or edits, you need to tell me, and explain what I am doing wrong. From now on, I will try to seek consensus on the talk page before splitting, if that addresses your concerns. CommonsKiwi (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Ldm1954, I have intentionally held off editing Lithium-ion battery ↗ and Lithium-ion battery components ↗, but you have not said anything further. If you have nothing else to add, I will continue my work, though I'll try to start a discussion on the talk page before any further splits. CommonsKiwi (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::I am OK with you editing so long as you post first what you want/intend to do on the talk page, and give people a few days to comment. I suggest also posting a short note at WT:PHYSICS ↗ & WT:CHEMISTRY ↗ that you are making some edits. Both these projects are pretty active, and there are experienced editors there who will almost certainly help. (I would not bother with others such as WT:Energy ↗ which seems to be asleep.) Giving a few days plus getting input from experienced editors would avoid future issues, we work by concensus. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Pesticide and GMO related topics

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them. This is a standard message to inform you that genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them is a designated contentious topic. Additionally, editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours in this topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗.  KoA (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)