W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Enćenćecasïdća

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

Welcome!



Hello, Enćenćecasïdća, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions ↗. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure ↗, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse ↗ to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center ↗.<!--
-->

Please remember to sign ↗ your messages on talk page ↗s by typing four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

'''Help is available:''' check out Wikipedia:Questions ↗,
ask your mentor via your user homepage,&#32;ask me on my talk page ↗, or {{edit|Special:MyTalk|ask for help on your talk page|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome-retro --> The Bushranger <sub><span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span></sub> 01:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello! I'm Augmented Seventh. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page :Flag of North Carolina ↗ have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source ↗, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-error1 --> Augmented Seventh (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to :Flag of Rhode Island ↗. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted ↗. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources ↗ or discuss the changes on the article's talk page ↗ before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-error2 --> Augmented Seventh (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

:I'm Sorry. I only was looking at Capitalization of the words Seal and State. I did not notice the incorrect information. I'll be more careful. I don't know why I missed it. But nevertheless, I'll pay more attention. If I need to experiment, like you said, I have my Sandbox, as well. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then submit a request through the unblock wizard ↗ or through <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:MyTalk|action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template:Unblock/editintro&preloadtitle=Unblock+request&preload=Template:Unblock/preload&preloadparams%5b%5d=}} your talk page]</span>. &nbsp;&#126; ToBeFree (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->

:I agree with this block. I was probably a little hot and needed a cool down. What happened was I got stuck in the mode of attempting to make my edit be the edit that stays. This, under Wikipedia policy, is referred to as Edit Warring. I've read what you said about why I was blocked, and what I may do once the block expires. I've also read the page on Edit Warring ↗. Having read these two things, this is what I plan to do: Except in cases of what a well-intentioned user must agree is Vandalism, Advertising, Promotion, Spam, BLP Violation, and/or violation of the laws of the United States, I will not repeatedly revert edits to make my edits be final. If I revert once, and then again, and yet nevertheless, my reversion is reverted, I will remember that this can be a dispute and act accordingly. I will "discuss controversial changes and seek consensus". If unsuccessful, I'll go through dispute resolution, and if really needed, page protection. Like I said earlier, I agree with this block and, I don't want to sound odd, but assuming you're the one who blocked me, I want to thank you. Like I said, I needed a cool down. Finally, I typed this as a reply as opposed a Request for Unblock. I don't want to appeal. I think it's good the way it is, and hopefully a teaching moment for me. Hope I'll be more thoughtful after expiration. Thanks again Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
::All good and no worries. Thank you very much for the detailed, thoughtful reply. I'll remove the block as it has lost its preventative purpose. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh, wow. I actually wasn't thinking about that but since you unblocked me anyway, thank you. And thanks for all that you do. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Augmented Seventh. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ↗&nbsp;to :Planetary system ↗ have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising ↗ and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox ↗" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources ↗, and from a neutral perspective ↗. Take a look at the welcome page ↗ to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.{{PAGENAME}} ↗<!-- Template:uw-advert1 --> Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to :Nebula ↗. While objective prose ↗ about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services ''is'' acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion ↗. Thank you.{{PAGENAME}} ↗<!-- Template:uw-advert2 --> Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

:I was dealing with a user who was engaging in LTA. I'm a bit confused about how that is advertising? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hey there!
::That was completely on me. We had the same goals, but somehow got our wires crossed.
::My apologies, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hey, no problem. Yes, we did and do have the same goals. Thanks for clearing that up. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. If there is anything I'm doing that you still need to bring to my attention, please let me know. Thanks for all that you do. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

A cookie for you!



{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for reporting them and getting the edits suppressed! Realtent (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:I'm working on the suppression part. But thank you. Happy to do my part. And by the way, tasty. Yum Yum. 😂 Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

TPA revocation vs. fighting with Salebot1



Hey @Enćenćecasïdća, no need to fight with Salebot1 over at User talk:Bubble Marint, I've asked a sysop to revoke TPA which hopefully will happen soon. They'll just revert you right back, and that vandal is automated, so it's not worth your time. Here's an applicable essay if you're interested ↗. Thanks for your vigilance. Best, Staraction (talk <b>·</b> contribs ↗) 05:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

:May you clarify? I'm a little confused Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::Yeah, admins/sysops are able to take away the ability of a blocked user to edit their talk page (typically, if they're being disruptive there as well, see WP:TPA ↗). The vandal you saw was Salebot1 ↗ who performs all of their vandalism through fully-automated means, so if you notice they've reverted you on their talk page it's probably a good idea to find an admin (perhaps the one who blocked the account) and have them revoke talk page access first, then revert. That way, you won't have to revert them over and over again, like what happened this time. Best, Staraction (talk <b>·</b> contribs ↗) 05:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I understand that. But I believe under Wikipedia policy, things that may be offensive, for example, are not allowed. If someone is posting bad things (Per oversight rules, I'm not going to say what) it needs to reverted, I will assume. Correct me, however, if I'm wrong. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::By the way, I read the essay you linked. I've read it before, too. I believe I understand the balance between the 3RR not applying, and letting Admins do their job. But again, let me know. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::You are correct regarding revision deletion ↗, but oftentimes the way to minimise visibility of the disruptive material is simply to wait for a admin/sysop to get to TPA revocation first. Of course, if it's in mainspace and you are unlikely to be reverted back (as Salebot1 is wont to do) then please do revert, but, like the essay says, {{tq|if it's clear that when you revert them, they'll revert you back: Stop.}} By all means, revert the edits after TPA is revoked and the blocked editor can't revert you back; but if you just keep edit-warring (not 3RR, not technically edit-warring, but it'll clog up Recent Changes, make the history harder to navigate, etc., as described in the essay) the disruptive material is likely to be ''more'' visible, not less.
::::This is by no means a hard-and-fast rule (after all, I'm quoting an essay here) but I think it's generally good advice. Let me know your thoughts. Best, Staraction (talk <b>·</b> contribs ↗) 06:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Just to be clear, it's not a rule, but advice, correct? By the way, do not mistake this reply as a sign I'm disregarding what you're saying Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, this is advice and not a rule. Although following this advice also helps you stay astray of trouble yourself (see the fourth block of text in the linked essay). Thanks, Staraction (talk <b>·</b> contribs ↗) 06:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, I'll keep that in mind. If I stray a bit away from it, hope it's understandable. Since it's not a rule, I probably won't follow it strictly. But like you said, good to stay astray of trouble 'myself'. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Of course, take care and happy editing. Best, Staraction (talk <b>·</b> contribs ↗) 06:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::You've been doing it again afterwards; please don't. You're not helping when you do that. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I said to Staraction "Yeah, I'll keep that in mind. If I stray a bit away from it, hope it's understandable. Since it's not a rule, I probably won't follow it strictly." I quoted that user though, and then said it's "good to stay astray of trouble 'myself'". I thought I understood the balance. Is there something I'm missing. "It's not against the rules" usually means it is advice Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::At the same time, by the way, I don't want to be the person who keeps asking "Is it against the law, though?". No matter what, keep asking... that's not the kind of person I am. Now that you've said this, I'll obviously be more careful. But still will like some clarity, if possible. Each and every Wikipedian (I guess I can consider myself one) wants to help build Wikipedia. So, it's all about being productive. Please help, if possible. Thanks. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::The primary question is not whether something is allowed but whether something is helpful. Is it helpful to repeatedly revert a blocked user on their own talk page for posting a YouTube link, feeding them attention? No. Is it potentially actively unhelpful? In a community where edit warring is considered disruptive even when you are right, arguably yes, it is arguably even actively unhelpful, even if just to a very little degree. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Just to be clear, is it different if it's an Article? This is hopefully my last reply to this topic Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm not ToBeFree, but in this case I'd argue it's helpful in mainspace. Salebot1 tends to move from article to article in their vandalism so there's less risk of being immediately reverted there. However, there have been cases where it'll return to the same article after being reverted; in those cases, use your best judgement. If it's obvious that the vandal will return, it's best to wait for a block. Best, Staraction (talk <b>·</b> contribs ↗) 19:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It depends. Recent changes patrollers without access to page protection or blocking tools often seem to overestimate the positive impact they can have on readers by reverting a vandal a thousand times before an administrator actually solves the problem. The best you can achieve is perhaps 50% less vandalism visibility to the reader in that specific article while your revision is online. Sometimes, the attention fed to a troll who desires exactly such attention, and the mess this creates in an article's edit history speak against doing so. When the edit is not very clearly intentionally damaging, it's also quickly a violation of WP:3RR ↗. Which a user's edits to their own talk page, by the way, are exempt from. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Thanks to Staraction, and ToBeFree. You were both extremely helpful. With Articles, I'll exercise caution. With User Talk Pages, I'll exercise caution even more so. Usually, after I see 1 or 2, I report them, though sometimes, I've taken longer than that. I'll report more quickly, like, after the first one or two. And after putting user on report, I'll wait until block. Thanks again. Thanks for all that you do. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I think I have a better idea of what to do, particularly when it comes to Anti-Vandal revisions being reverted Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::18px|link=|alt=🙂 ↗20px|alt=🌻 ↗ &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake



Relating to User talk:~2026-29446-90. I put a G11 on a User Talk Page that they authored (the User's name differs, so don't know if the TA and regular account are connected) to initiate Speedy Deletion. However, when doing so, I, the Nominator, used g11 ↗, rather than spamuser ↗. Also put wrong template on the Author of the Talk Page. I don't know I'm allowed to remove Template and put correct one. Will that constitute a Contest. Is such an edit allowed before any Admin has reviewed it? I'm a bit confused. By the way, I don't know how to even get the attention of an Admin. So, I'm simply, for now, putting it on my Talk Page. If somebody can help me. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{u|Enćenćecasïdća}}, both templates are about G11 ↗. "Spamuser" is a special case of G11. There is nothing wrong in using the G11 template. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:For the record, the Teahouse ↗ is a good place to ask such questions. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::(And yes, you may freely replace/correct speedy deletion templates placed by yourself.) &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::So, if not pinging a specific Admin, but nevertheless wanting to ask a question, ask Teahouse ↗, correct? Also, both Db-g11 ↗ and Db-spamuser ↗ are part of G11, and therefore, may be used, correct? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Please always avoid asking any specific administrator unless there is a very good reason why only that administrator could help. The Teahouse is great.
:::If you need a rule of thumb, don't use "spamuser" at all; there is little point in doing so. G11 is fine. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::(And you've been here for a week and have many questions. Please reconsider if you really currently must review the quality and policy adherence of others' work while you still learn their basics. If these are the questions you currently have, you shouldn't go around and tag things for speedy deletion yet.) &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Will remember Teahouse. Also, will remember G11. Also, will remember that I may replace deletion templates myself. If I'm doing things the right way, I guess I'm fine, correct? I have a pretty good understanding of Wikipedia policies. If I misinterpret something, I may make a mistake. Augmented Seventh told me about my edits to Flag of Rhode Island and Flag of North Carolina, and since that time, I've been careful, taking more time to look at edits before reverting. You blocked me for Edit Warring, and I learned from that. You and Staraction told me about things that are not edit warring but are nevertheless disruptive. I was little confused, and repeated the behavior initially, but since then have not. I'll definitely attempt to stay in my lane. But I guess if I've already learned how to do a specific thing, such as tagging for speedy deletion, aren't I allowed to do it again if I see the need? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Please don't actively search for cases needing speedy deletion, and when you think you've found one, ask yourself three times if someone else won't notice it the same way you did and deal with it already. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I'm replying not in chronological order. I want to be clear I'm not actively looking for cases needing speedy deletion. But yes, what you said nevertheless remains true, ask three times.... I just want to know if it's still OK for me tag for speedy deletion if it's obvious that it's needed? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I just wanted to know. Not attempting to be jerky. I like to do things the right way Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::All good, no worries. A speedy deletion tag is essentially a call for help from an administrator for a predefined reason. Of course it is perfectly fine for you to call for help from an administrator. Actively searching for cases an administrator should have a look at is where potential problems begin, as doing so in a way that is helpful and not just creating more work requires you to correctly make admin decisions in your mind, and that's a bit early. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I'll do it if it's extremely obvious. If there's even a tiny amount doubt, however, since I'm new, I'll pass Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Explanation



This is an explanation for you and {{u|This is a hard decision}} regarding this ↗ discussion at AIV. While temp accounts now mask IPs, editors with the TAIV ↗ permission (including myself and almost everyone involved in clean-up) have the capacity to view edits from temp accounts according to the IPs used. While you might only be able to see the legacy edits, I can toggle over and see edits on a given IP up-to-the-moment with temp account information appended. This exists to enable range blocks that ensnare the theoretically infinite numbers of temp accounts that could operate from a single set of IP. As in the report I made, I often report individual IPs and ranges as knocking down temp accounts is more a game of whack-a-mole. If you ever have a question about a report I've made at AIV or elsewhere, please ping me–I only found your question when sifting through the AIV history to figure out why no one dealt with the report. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks. Yes, got to avoid Whack-a-mole. As a new user, I don't have TAIV, so I only see Legacy Contribs. I'll remember that. I'll remember pinging as well. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::No problem. I hope you remain interested in assisting in the fight against vandalism. Please ping me if you have any questions about how to become proficient on the project! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:"I'll definitely attempt to stay in my lane" does not include teaching grandmother to suck eggs ↗ at AIV. Really, please find something less problematic to do than messing deeply with things you don't know about yet. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::Yes. I've got to avoid "teaching grandmother to suck eggs" at AIV and I would add, elsewhere. Until now, my usual sentiment has been 'I think I know Wikipedia policies'. There's a chance I do. But yes, stick to what I know clearly and be careful when attempting to do new types of edits, that's what I'll will do. Thanks again Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:Oh, so you put the IP for CheckUsers and TAIV's to block/ban/warn all accounts with that IP. That definitely clears things up. Thanks! This is a hard decision (talk to me!, contribs ↗) 21:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::({{u|This is a hard decision}}, all administrators have the permission and administrators can just block IP addresses and IP address ranges as well. They click the link, they see the contributions, they can block. Nothing changed in this regard pre- and post-temporary-account-introduction.) &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to ''' living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics <em>procedures</em>, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ruby Huston ↗



Hello {{u|Enćenćecasïdća}}, you are legally responsible ↗ for content you (re-)add to Wikipedia pages. It took you 30 seconds to take full legal responsibility for the content someone else claimed to be untrue. You may well be right, but can you please be careful. Thanks. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

:I said on the Talk Page "I believe it is against the Wikipedia to impersonate a person. Furthermore, everything on Wikipedia needs to have a source". Is that what you're referring to? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::Insisting on sources and reporting for the same reason ↗ someone who has <em>removed</em> content is surely a creative move, given that the only person in the dispute who needs to ensure the content is sourced is you. My concern is about your revert of their removals. I agree that we may well be dealing with an impersonator and the judgement is yours, I just have a feeling that next time you'll encounter such a case, you may well be dealing with the actual article subject and you may be restoring libel blindly. If that won't happen, all is good. If you thoroughly checked the content you restored 30 seconds after its removal, all is good. If you went by a gut feeling for restoring content blindly, you're heading towards trouble and need to change that behvavior. Like many of yours, addressed in the discussions above. If other users constantly have to get here to remind you to be more careful, you will be blocked to prevent it from continuing. You are perhaps 1% ready for administrating Wikipedia yet seem to be operating in a mode that starts being appropriate at 10% or so. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I understand. Since I've posted long replies before, I just need to be more careful. Simply saying "I'll be more careful" and a few more words will not do it. But I'll keep libel risk in mind. Hope this is the last time someone, including yourself, must need to babysit me. I really, really, need to slow down. Thanks Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Okay, no worries then. May I ask if you're using an AI? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::::BTW, thanks for posting the Topic here about Contentious Topics Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::No problem. Most people who receive these notices are not too happy about them because from the moment they've been notified on, they can be reported at WP:AE ↗ for policy violations in the area. Making people afraid of sanctions isn't really the purpose of these notifications but sometimes not a bad side effect. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::And Oh, AI is a whole other discussion. Since this is Wikipedia, I've got to keep language professional. But to put it mildly, I hate AI. All the slop, low quality. And plus, let's just say AI someday becomes really good, like better than humans. What's the point? As a human, I don't like any AI doing anything. I've been hearing about the AI bubble bursting. I'm like "So, when is it going to happen?" One of the reasons I got attracted to this project, is how regulated use of LLMs are. How much Humans are involved. To be clear, can AI do some good, including helping humans? Sure. But Humans nevertheless need to be supreme. And by the way, in keeping with your last post, I'm not afraid. Not about Contentious Topics or anything else. Just got to follow the rules. Besides, I've already made a few mistakes without the topic of Contentious Topics being broached.🤨 Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the clarification! &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

User talk:BiaFraDIeditor



I see you're trying to keep the revision on that talk page, and although you've seen it already, you probably shouldn't edit war with them ↗ because it just makes contrib logs and page histories messy for admins. Realtent (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

:OK, I'll stop. This seemed different from Edit warring trouble I had before. I didn't see this as the same as those. Sorry I seemed to repeat the same behavior Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:There's vandalism on Articles that is ongoing, am I allowed to still revert those, since regular readers can see it easily? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::I guess the point is almost moot, since the user has been blocked, but still for future reference. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::This time it was fine because it fell under an edit war exemption ↗. Just be careful of the three revert rule ↗ and you should be fine. I've asked for a page protection as well to try and prevent this sort of thing. Realtent (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::But just to be clear, what I was doing on the user's Talk Page, was that Edit warring, or even something too near to it? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::On a user's talk page, it ''technically'' isn't edit warring in the strict Wikipedia:Edit warring ↗ sense where you'd get in serious trouble, but it might get you in some other trouble ↗.
:::::Overall, people generally agree with Wikipedia:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets ↗ and I think others might get a little frustrated if you did it. Next time, I'd err on the side of caution and stop after one or two edits of the user vandalizing a talk page, then wait until they're blocked to revert again. Realtent (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Sorry to keep asking questions. There were some edits (and they sank to the back, thanks to my near-edit warring) had some pretty offensive things, things worse than the later edits. Again, sorry to keep asking, but when I undid those, was that a problem? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Wasn't really a problem, I'd say it was fine to revert. Even if you do EW with vandals/socks, the worst that'll happen is a little frustration and maybe a slap on the wrist, and the best is that you remove really bad stuff like there.
:::::::All in all it's really up to your digression after they're reported to AIV or other noticeboards, as it'll all be gone when the block hits. Realtent (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I'll use my discretion. I'll probably continue to do such reverting to a degree. But since you are, by my count, the third Editor to warn me about this type of reversion, maybe, I'll just need to slow down. Maybe, even if I revert, don't do it so rapidly. I guess if I space it out, the probability of only a lower number of reversions happening before block will go up. That's convoluted language, but I hope you get the point. The more one waits, the nearer we are to the user becoming blocked. So, yeah, I'll space it out. Also, unless it's something overtly offensive, I'll go further than merely spacing it out, by simply letting the edit stand until a block occurs. I hope this is the last time someone needs to warn me about dealing with Vandals and Socks. I keep saying 'I now understand...', hope this time I actually do. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not a country. It is a city in China. Please stop providing false information.



Hong Kong is not a country. It is a city in China. Please stop providing false information. &#126;2026-30884-62 ↗ (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yes. Another TA, did make the same edit, but those were also reverted. It doesn't seem, as of the time of this posting, that Hong Kong is simply China. It is also not the case that they are an independent Country. It seems they are a City-State/Semiautonomous Region. Curious, because your edit pattern seems to resemble the said pattern of the other TA. I am not a CheckUser ↗, so I'm not certain, nor by the way am I wanting to be accusatory. Please remember, however, that using multiple accounts ↗ is regulated, and is generally discouraged. Addtionally, you may be accused of Sockpuppetry ↗, if a second or subsequent account was setup improperly. Thanks Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

How is an edit removing citation needed info that is a year old unconstructive?



You undid my edit on MOLLE ↗ saying it wasn't constructive, but it removed it uncited info waiting a year for a source and mostly mentioned brand names. It seems to me that reverting it to include it is unconstructive. &#126;2026-30793-94 ↗ (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:To my understanding, there is no clear guidance on how long to wait before removing content. I think that is the purpose of Citation needed ↗. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:So, it seems a bit unconstructive to simply remove content. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::On your own talk page here, just above, you literally wrote "Furthermore, everything on Wikipedia needs to have a source". And yet you reverted my removal of something without a source and claim it's unconstructive to just remove something? &#126;2026-30793-94 ↗ (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Which comment are you pointing to? Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I don't see how it matters when you yourself say it (and could presumably search your own talk page for your own changes), but here is where you wrote *you* wrote in support of essentially *my* point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:En%C4%87en%C4%87ecas%C3%AFd%C4%87a#c-En%C4%87en%C4%87ecas%C3%AFd%C4%87a-20260517043900-ToBeFree-20260517043600 &#126;2026-30793-94 ↗ (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::That is a little different. That related to edits made that may be in violation of Wikipedia Policies Relating to BLP ↗ and my reversions fell under When to speedily remove Unsourced Material ↗. Furthermore, the user claimed to the Subject of the Article. I ended being told to remember the balance between running into legal liability and stopping those impersonating. The Article in question here obviously, is not a BLP. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::You literally said "Furthermore, everything on Wikipedia needs to have a source". I read the thread, I understand the conversation. That seems immaterial to your statement "Furthermore, '''everything''' on '''Wikipedia''' needs to have a source". (Emphasis mine). Not somethings, not BLP. &#126;2026-30793-94 ↗ (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::My statement is consistent with Wikipedia Policy. Yes indeed, everything on Wikipedia needs to have a source. The question isn't whether the statement I made about sources is true but about what to do when encountering unsourced material. Since you've undid my reversion, I'll leave it at that. Your summary the second time around was more finite, which is think I good, too. By the way, if I, or any other Editors ↗ including Administrators ↗ state policy, I/they are not the ones who came up with the policy. Policy on Wikipedia, (as well as Wikimedia in general, though, I'll stick to Wikipedia) is developed though a process ↗. Thanks Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Enćenćecasïdća}}, the discussion above is painful to read. You have completely missed the main point. Repeatedly.
::::::::* You are (even legally) responsible ↗ for content you add to Wikipedia.
::::::::* You have added content without sources to Wikipedia that someone else had removed for a lack of citations, violating WP:BURDEN ↗ by restoring disputed content without the required inline citation.
::::::::That's part one. You have violated policy.
::::::::Now, part two: Someone comes to your talk page and informs you about this. Your response is to lecture them in AI style about what they should do.
::::::::Enooooough. Let Wikipedia alone with this for a week, please. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026


<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' because your recent edits appear to be disruptive ↗. Please note that this is not necessarily an assessment of faith or character, and we welcome good faith edits ↗ that are also constructive and in line with our policies ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then submit a request through the unblock wizard ↗ or through <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:MyTalk|action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template:Unblock/editintro&preloadtitle=Unblock+request&preload=Template:Unblock/preload&preloadparams%5b%5d=}} your talk page]</span>. &nbsp;&#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->

When you return, after two weeks of editing and one week of being blocked, please do something you have not proven unable to helpfully do yet. That is, not new page review and not recent changes patrolling. The Task Center ↗ has some other ideas. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:Alright, I'll wait a week, and maybe, little more. I'll look at Task Center, as well. Will not appeal. Last time I said I needed a cool down. This time, however, it's clear that my pattern (pretty much entirely RC Patrol) has been disruptive. If I don't lay off of RC and new page review for awhile, block may need to be longer. Indefinite block may also happen. If it did, I'll deserve it. So, again, I'll look at the Tast Center for some other ideas. In response to your earlier post, and just to make the record clear, I do not use AI. I've outlined my reasons clearly as to why I don't use AI. But simply put, I want humans to be supreme. But this is not simply about sounding like AI. I don't want to lecture, but I'll just say one more thing (nothing to do Wikipedia policy, per se): It's a little rich to say I want humans to be supreme, but then as a human, be disruptive. Just doesn't work that way. Anyway. Task Center it is. If I do return to RC (nowhere in the foreseeable future), I'll need to much more careful. But as you're well aware, I've said things to the effect of 'I'll be more careful' or 'I'll stay in my lane' and the like many times before. If a Motor Vehicle Operator repeatedly gets fines for breaking rules, but keeps promising to be more careful, how long before a license revocation is warranted. Ought not he/she/they to just stop, and maybe, do things totally differently? I hope this rather large post doesn't come through as defiance. I don't want it to be. I keep saying I'm learning, but it's clear I'm not. So, yeah. And again, this is not an Appeal. Despite engaging in behavior that resulted in two blocks in my 2-week history, I've still gotten lenient outcomes. First was 24 Hours, which was reversed because you thought I learned. Now 1 week. Enough. Thanks for taking the time. And thanks for reading through this post. 1 week and maybe a little more. And when I return, beeline to the Task Center before any further edits. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::I've read through this ... and it's full of good self-reflection but also logically identical to the way an AI agent would assess the matter. I don't know. If you are fluent in other languages, do feel free to edit Wikipedia in these languages. The block is from the English Wikipedia only. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::There is no way to prove I'm not using AI. One can only go by patterns. But English is my first language. I somewhat know a few others, such as Spanish, and a few South Asian languages (my parents are from there). I'm pretty fluent in a specific language from there. I'm mulling editing in that language, as it exists as a language on Wikipedia (that project exists, that is). But I'm yet to do that because English is still an easier language for me to use. This other language, as well as the few others I know, aren't quite as easy. I'm not sure how to avoid being accused of using AI. This actually speaks to the larger problem with AI, but that is a discussion for another day, and not for Wikipedia. Since my teens, and even before, I've had a certain style to my speech. Interesting oratory skills, though I don't want to boast. I don't even have a GED but people have complemented me for my skills. Maybe, I ought to tone down the oratory a bit? It's confusing because humans can be extra skilled and depending on how they apply their skill, their work will be accused of being AI generated. Like I said earlier, I don't want an Unblock. I want to say one more thing, but I don't want to get in trouble because this is an oddly specific thing to point out -- hope you can bear with me though: I am not making an Unblock Request. I've seen a few vandals (I was RC patrolling, of course) who after getting blocked, made Unblock Requests using AI. At least, it seemed that way. Wikipedia Policy discourages whataboutism, so I may not name names, but you get the point. Just curious about using AI to reflect without using such 'reflection' to Request Unblock? If I wanted to be aggressive and disrupt Wikipedia wittingly, wouldn't I want to be Unblocked faster, rather than serving it out? Disregarding whether or not it was witting, clearly my behavior was disruptive. Just a little confused. Is there anything I can do better to avoid being accused of using AI? That's a silly question, I know, because can't one use the advice to craft better prompts? But with current technology, this is all I can do. Just give me some advice, if possible. Again, though I sound like AI, that's for reading through this long post. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::::{{stalker}} Without commenting on the block itself: For what it's worth, as someone who deals with a high amount of LLM generated text both on and off wiki, I personally don't believe you're using AI. I think your style of writing in longer messages is very similar to the way that LLMs write, but I think that's simply an unfortunate coincidence due to what appears to me(not to put words in your mouth) as desire to be very descriptive and clear in what you're attempting to communicate. LLMs had to get their training data from somewhere after all. <span class="nowrap"><small>''ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸ''</small><span style="color:#a30d8f">Taffer</span>💬<small>(they/she ↗)</small></span> 05:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's an interesting way of putting it. Thanks for saying that. Yeah, I'm a little descriptive. The block, as you eluded, is a separate matter. But it's nice to know that it's probably just a coincidence, with respect to AI. Of course, ToBeFree cited other reasons (unrelated to AI) for my block (things by the way, from which I ought to learn). But I'm a little relieved to hear though there are similarities, I'm still human, and kind of sound like one. Thanks for taking the time to write this. Hope to repeat not what got me in trouble the first time (and the second) once the block expires (see above). Thanks again Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Please...



thumb|alt=|Have a good day! 😁 ↗
{{{icon|25px|alt=Information icon ↗}}} '''Do not report''' any of post-2026 Salebot1 ↗'s minions, like AntiCompositeNumber {{personal attack removed}}. You warned me once, and now it's my turn. If you find any of these AntiCompositeNumber sock accounts, please '''do not report them'''.

I have found out that other multiple editors did the same too, so here's a coffee for you to continue your editing schedule! Cheers! – <span style="color:#e89505; font-family:Segoe UI">Simple</span><span style="color:#e6c327; font-family:Segoe UI">Objects-</span><span style="color:#e6c327; font-family:Segoe UI">9</span> ↗<span style="color:#e6c327; font-family:Segoe UI">ei</span> 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (<span style="border-radius:8px; font-family:Segoe UI; background-color:#045bc4; color:#0ff522">🌎 CentralAuth</span> ↗) 19:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know. I just want to be clear that I did not say you reporting them was bad. I said that you re-reporting them was not a good idea. Like I said on your Talk page, a trick was done to block them, even though the Block was not visible on Wikipedia. After that was done, and REVDEL was done on AIV, you accidentally re-reported them. That was the problem. But yes, I'll follow your advice. Won't report any of them again when I see it's obvious they are connected (the Good User's username + Personal Attack Removed). Please let every user, who does what I did, know about the same thing. Until all users stop the said Reporting, REVDEL will continue to be needed. And by the way, please keep your editing schedule, too! Coffee!. Cheers! Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you help me with this?



I’ve pinged you about this issue on Talk, so you can read the discussion. The point is that Inherli is effectively locking down the Spain article despite having been repeatedly asked to participate on Talk. Could you revert his latest edit and ask him to take the matter to Talk?

I'm exhausted and I don't want to be blocked. Léopold Favre (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:Sorry for the delay. I don't want to be involved in this, actually. The only reason I got involved was because there was a suspicion that a Sockpuppet was the one attempting to request the edit. I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of being a Sockpuppet. I have no evidence one way or the other, actually. I'm not a CheckUser ↗, so there's no easy way to tell. If there is a pattern, I may say something about that, and even report it. I, at least in my eyes, don't see any evidence for Sockpuppetry, now that I think about it. This does not mean anything, obviously, for how any Admin will look at it. Otherwise, I kind of don't want to be part of the discussion. To answer your question, I don't want to revert, and I don't want to ask the other User to do anything either. Both that Account, and you have been warned about 3RR. I don't want to get hung up in it myself. Like I said, I don't want to participate further, but I agree with Moxy, narrowly. I think that going forward, with respect to this matter, the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle ↗ is the best you, and others involved, or who will be involved, may do. Thanks. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This barnstar is for reverting personal attack against me. Pachu Kannan (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
|}Category:Wikipedians who received barnstars for fighting vandalism ↗<!--template:The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar-->

:By the way, sorry I'm 2 days late. I was busy with other things both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. But thank you. The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. I believe it's my first one. Thanks for giving me that. Personal attacks aren't a good thing. At all. I happened to see it, which was good. So, thanks for the Barnstar. And thanks for all that you do. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Vandals' talk pages



Hello! Thank you for helping out with antivandalism :) I wanted to mention that it's usually unhelpful to repeatedly revert vandal edits -- especially on their own talk pages. Typically the best action is to just report them to AIV, and then revert anything offensive after they're blocked. Otherwise it just gives them the excuse to keep re-adding the material. Again, genuinely, thank you for your work with antivandalism :) --<span style="opacity:.95;border:1px outset #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(60deg,#16C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span> 04:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:Wow. I'm sorry. I already was told about this when dealing with Salebot1, a little over a month back. Can't believe I fell into it again. Again, do apologize. But I want to mention one thing, though. I believe I already realized it and stopped. If you look at the History of the Talk Page, you'll see that there was one more edit (last I checked) and I did not do anything about that. A little later, that user did a Self-Revert. Again, thanks for telling me. Just wanted to point that out. No way, I'm I wanting to self-justify, but anyway. BTW, and this doesn't excuse what I did, but I reported them to UAA. Non-script. At least, that seems to be the case. I don't know if there will be a Nuke, REVDEL, Oversight, or if none of them apply. I guess none of them apply. Anyway. Again, thanks for letting me know. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::@TonySt By the way, I've gotten in trouble in the past, including getting blocked twice. I'm a little tensed sometimes when I hear something like this. I just hope I don't repeat this behavior again. It obviously is disruptive. Hope I'm not in any trouble, right now. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:::@Enćenćecasïdća, it's no big deal, nothing to worry about :) <span style="opacity:.95;border:1px outset #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(255deg,#16C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span> 17:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Oh. Thanks for saying that. Kind of a relief. But yes, I hope not to repeat it. Maybe, it's not the worst thing. But hopefully I don't cause a clogging up of histories again. So, here's what I'll do going forward, hopefully. I hope I'll stick to it strictly, just to be on the safe side. If it's a User Talk Page, I'll do one (1) revert. If that doesn't stand, I'll leave it at that. Then, if they were already blocked, I'll let the Blocking Admin know. If they weren't already blocked, I'll report them. In either case, once TPA is revoked, if the bad content is still visible, I'll revert. Hope I can strictly follow it going forward. Not, perhaps, a Wikipedia rule. Just a self-imposed one. But thanks for taking the time to reply and say it's not a big deal, and that I don't need to worry. Cheers.😊 Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports ↗



Please see Wikipedia:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets ↗. 45dogs <small> (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗</small> 04:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:This is not a User Talk Page, which is why I was doing these reversions. Just want to a little clarification. Thanks Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::I do not see how it not being a user talk page is relevant. The advice applies to all pages. 45dogs <small> (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗</small> 04:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::<S>Sorry to make this long. Will I get in trouble for this type of behavior? This doesn't mean I'm going to do this again. And don't interpret it that way, if possible. I just want to know.</s> Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I've read the essay. I have seen others doing this type of reverting (this is not "That person is doing it, why can't I?"). I don't know how to simply avoid this entirely, and let it go. Bad content being reverted repeatedly makes it more visible. Yet simply leaving it there until an Admin acts nevertheless keeps it visible. This thing came about 2 months ago, when dealing with Salebot1 (I suspect same as this one). The message I got from that, as well as yesterday, from TonySt (I stupidly did that behavior again with a User Talk Page) was that with a User Talk Page, since visibility for that page is quite low, repeatedly reverting only draws more attention to the bad content. When it's Mainspace, it's a little different, because the content is already quite visible. Sorry that I'm saying all this. The edits by me of Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports were probably unnecessary, and I ought to have just let it stand after a few, I guess. But frankly, yeah, I'll just leave the bad content there, from now on, after a few, disregarding what page. For User Talk Pages, I've already adopted a more strict rule (see above). Let someone else do it. Once an Admin has blocked, if it's still visible, I'll revert. Thanks for taking the time. Sorry about these long posts. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

On my talk page...



What signature were you talking about? Do you think your eyes are just lying to you? This is the entire code for my signature as of July 3, 2026:
</nowiki></code><br>
Or are you just... hallucinated? Please ask, because my earlier signature was based in the United States Semiquincentennial ↗ (and I never include internet meme ↗s in my signature), or it was because you noticed me warning a TA that triggered the edit filter...? – <span style="font-family:Segoe UI">SimpleObjects-9ei (talk / contribs ↗ / CentralAuth ↗)</span> 20:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:It seemed to have two numbers on them. six and seven. In the form of numbers. However, a later post on another Talk Page did not have it. This is why I did a Self-Revert Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
@User:SimpleObjects-9ei I definitely don't think I was hallucinating. I saw these two numbers. Since I didn't see it after that, I guess it's not a problem. Sorry for all this. Enćenćecasïdća (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)