User Talk: TiredKitty

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

Welcome (again)

hi!!! I realize you've already been welcomed, but I have to leave the kitty version of the welcome message on your talk page due to your username and wonderful userboxes :3
thumb|Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|'''Welcome!''' ↗ ↗
Hello, TiredKitty, and '''''welcome to Wikipedia'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay and continue to contribute to Wikipedia ↗. Below are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction ↗

The five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

How to edit a page ↗

How to write a great article ↗

Simplified Manual of Style ↗

Your first article ↗

Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community ↗

Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox ↗

and check out the Task Center ↗, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign your name ↗ on talk pages ↗ using four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our '''help pages''' ↗, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! Merlin04talkcontribs ↗ 21:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you very much, Merlin ^w^ tiredkitty (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your excellent edit summaries. I wish everyone would do that. Joyous! Noise! ↗ 02:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

:awwe, thank you so much. That means a lot coming from an editor as experienced as yourself tiredkitty (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Article assessments

Hi, thank you for assessing articles. Would you mind putting the banner shells ''inside'' the banner shell, like this ↗? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:thank you for letting me know
:apologies as I didn't realise I was doing it correctly
:I'll go through and correct them all as soon as I get a spare moment
:thank you tiredkitty (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::No problem, thanks again — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:::of course, and it seems that a very helpful bot has already done it for me already on the majority of articles which saves me a lot of work tiredkitty (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC ↗ notification: Draft:List of Carcinogens listed by the NTP ↗ has a new comment

<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of Carcinogens listed by the NTP ↗. Thanks! -- Reconrabbit 15:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC) </div>

Tools for undoing edits.

I saw your recent undoes. I would like to tell you about tools such as Twinkle ↗, RedWarn ↗, and Ultraviolet ↗. They help you revert edits that you think are bad more quickly. Hope this helps.

Also, you should warn the editors using templates ↗, but tools such as Twinkle and RedWarn have automatic ways to add them. Thanks, '''RandomPerson238 ↗''' 03:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you very much,
:I'm still quite new to using Wikipedia extensions but I've been using twinkle for a bit now which I've found very beneficial
:I'll look into the other two, thank you tiredkitty (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

very very awesome profile

its so very kitty… just like me.. Roxstorm (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

:awwe, thank you very much ^-^ tiredkitty (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. Your recent edit to :Girl Crush (disambiguation) ↗ appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have ↗ a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability ↗ guideline. Thank you.  JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, I appreciate you letting me know but I wasn't actually the person who added that, I just moved it as it was placed below the disambiguation footer template and I was unsure if it was notable or not so decided to just leave it in place for someone else to revert if necessary
:you may wish to also notify the person who placed the item in the list if you have not already done so
:kind regards TiredKitty 16:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the clarification. I'm not going to notify them for now, but if they add it again, I will. Once again, thanks for the heads up. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
:::of course ^^ TiredKitty 17:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
::oh, okay, it seems like my edit went through the same time as the previous was reverted and it didn't flag as conflicting intermediate
::apologies TiredKitty 17:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''TiredKitty'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Scary notifications caused by redwarn}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Scary notifications caused by redwarn ↗}}.


See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

<div></div>
</div>
|}

Keep it up! (and have a kitten)

left|150px ↗
Hey there, I noticed you had installed redwarn and did a little bit RCP a while ago, I try to make a point to show appreciation to everyone who tries to undertake this task at least once in a while, so, thank you for your contributions. Happy editing -

Pyrrhic victor (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
 

:awwe; that's very sweet of you
:thank you and likewise ^w^ TiredKitty 17:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal

hi
I did give an edit summary for all edits and removals. ~2026-33324-56 ↗ (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

:further, edits have been agreed on talk pages. Does anyone even read the talk pages? ~2026-33324-56 ↗ (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hi, I appreciate you reaching out
::I still can't see any reasoning provided on the edit summary for the edit that I reverted , only the text that automatically generates when you revert an edit that describes what the change was made to but not why, as shown on this DIF ↗ unless you're referencing the edit summaries provided by <bdi>~2026-32988-60 ↗ which had already been reverted by another editor and reverted edits should ideally not be reinstated without a reason provided in the edit summary</bdi>
::Although it is clear that cleanup is much needed for this article, I believe consensus has not been reached to a sufficient threshold for half of the article to be deleted due to the number of back and forth changes on the version history showing that editors are likely not in agreement, even if they have not voiced this on the talk page; it may be wise to ping all of the involved parties and wait for further engagement on the talk page before making additional major changes to this article
::kind regards and I hope this has helped you to make some sense of this,
::TiredKitty 03:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

about the reverted edits

please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#User:Vayro.7 ↗, the 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 theoretically references "the prefrontal cortex as a critical brain region involved in self-control" but doesn't, the laughable "pages=167–202" which the source says "pp. 933-938" and so on and so forth

i actually don't know how to explain that in a concise edit summary, which is why i tend to make them very short

(nor do i know how to use edit summaries in a good manner, primarily because i have absolutely no idea on how to do good edit summaries, but regardless) ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:okay, that's fine; I understand and my apologies
:in future, it would be really helpful if you could please link to the relevant page
:to do this you can type [-[website link|what you'd like to call it]-] but without the dashes in between the brackets to link to the relevant section
:also, being concise is semi-optional; it's better to explain it in long form than to go without explaining it so if you're struggling to word it concisely, you can totally write a full explanation, that's mostly there to help new users understand what it's there for and avoid typing entire paragraphs unnecessarily
:you also have the option to write "please see talk page" and write a more-in depth explanation on the article talk page
:i'll also see if I can find any policies or essays that might help you to better understand edit summaries and how to use them but the most important thing is to use them, particularly when removing content from articles because unexplained content deletion is something that will in most cases result in a revert and a warning which isn't ideal when you've evidently done your due diligence which is something we could really use more of on wikipedia, particularly in relation to AI as this is an area many editors don't feel confident getting involved in
:i'll restore the revisions you created and again, welcome and my sincerest apologies
:kind regards and happy editing TiredKitty 01:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::noted, i'll link like this ↗ instead of using bare references like it's done at SPI and also link papers like this ↗ (also, you can get a link to a paper from the doi by doing doi.org/$NUMBER, isn't that awesome?) ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::you're welcome use either form of link where one exists however if there's a discussion elsewhere on wikipedia that you'd like to link to (ie. that doesn't have a shortcut) then adding that link can be really helpful for other editors that may wish to review the page history. however with citations, they should ideally be made using a citation template as opposed to creating an external link
:::to clarify, what I meant is that it would be helpful to add a link in the edit summary and you may often find this easier than explaining eg. "please see discussion on AI noticeboard ↗" as an edit summary
:::kind regards TiredKitty 01:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::oohh, yeah, that's a great idea for the edit summary! i'm astounded i didn't think of that ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::thanks, it takes some time but you'll get the hang of it, most of these are things you pick up from seeing other people's edits; you seem to be doing very well for a new contributor
:::::Oh, and just to further illustrate my point about long edit summaries being completely fine, here are a couple of my chunkier ones, for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stress_dose&diff=prev&oldid=1359072054 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_sexual_arousal_disorder&diff=prev&oldid=1345644443 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Vitiligo_Day&diff=prev&oldid=1345318009 ↗ nobody seems to mind as long as the length is justifiable
:::::best of luck and I'll go re-instate those edits I reverted of yours before I forget
:::::kind regards TiredKitty 01:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::oh cool, so you seem to hang in WP:MEDRS ↗ articles, i like them a lot, i use wikipedia on medical stuff whenever i want to make sure that i'm not missing the basics. Also, I'm not that new, I think I'd have ECP if i tallied my IP/TA edits ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::mhm, I really like medicine and it's an area i'm quite knowledgeable about but i'm so busy so much of the time that I often neglect making more substantiative edits and now mostly patrol recent changes as I find it a lot less stressfull; wikipedia has loads of great medical content but honestly, wikiproject psychology has a special place in my heart as it was a huge part of how I started studying psychology. I'd love to improve navigation between articles on wikiproject medicine so it can become a similarly useful resource but it would be a pretty major undertaking that i'm not really ready for at the moment TiredKitty 02:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::yeah, i'm not surprised honestly; looking at your contribs, it looks like you went straight to the noticeboards and my reaction was like 'O-O this person is very clued up'
:::::::TiredKitty 02:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::i know my alphebet soups! ↗ ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::indeed you do TiredKitty 02:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::also tiredkitty, you might want to lighten either your text or the background text in your signature because i'm unable to read your username ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Welcome to Wikipedia, and nice spot on the DOI ref hallucination. :)
:::::::::::Personally when I have a lot to say for an edit, I'd summarize it with one or a few points that felt most convincing to me. Sometimes I go and start a new talk page thread when there's too much stuff to complain about.
::::::::::::eg. "rv WP:LLM ↗, hallucinated doi reference, target article doesn't exist. see talk page discussion". 
::::::::::::ps. Having one hallucinated ref is already more than enough to justify scrutiny / revert, since editors are expected to check their refs by hand.
:::::::::::海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 05:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::ah! i'll keep that in mind whenever reverting an LLM edit. this is pretty useful ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::pps. I tend to take the stance that it's easier for peer review to happen in edit summaries than previewing / opening a new page to check the diff, so I often cramp them to the character limit. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 05:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::thank you for letting me know about my signature because it's very readable to me but maybe that's because of my accessibility filter (?) i'll see if I can tweak the settings TiredKitty 05:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::this should be better now ~ TiredKitty (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC) ~ TiredKitty (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::or perhaps now ? ~ TiredKitty (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC) ~ TiredKitty (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::or maybe it's just signing them all automatically for me now (?) ~ TiredKitty (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::apparently so, nice
:::::::::::::::(sorry for the spam, I'll clean it up now) ~ TiredKitty (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::@TiredKitty (please ping me next time! i'm a TA so i do not have watchlist permissions ↗)
::::::::::::::::Yes! it is way more readable, and also has a contrast of 10.81:1, which is excellent ~2026-35622-93 ↗ (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)