User talk:Timtrent

Click here to leave a new message, LINK to any article you want me to look at And sign your posts using ~~~~. I may not bother with posts where articles are not linked and posts are not signed. I may just delete them and ignore them and you. I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask If you want me to do something for you, make it easy for me, please.

This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} or {{ping}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

It is 7:28 AM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online. For accurate time please the page

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Edit warring

Hey. To clarify, I have no interest in the content dispute. I just saw the edit warring through recent changes. OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@OXYLYPSE Understood. I felt you might be a calming voice, however. This topic is getting out of hand by the minute 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems all I achieved was moving the content dispute to user talk pages, which is probably more of a hindrance than a help. A comment of your tone was probably more appropriate in hindsight. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@OXYLYPSE ordure, as they say, happens. Sometimes we are lucky, other times not so much. one or the other needs to drop the stick. Being correct is not the same as being right. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@OXYLYPSE I have tried, at User talk:Axad12#Jim Gamble to offer what guidance I am able. I try my best to be as even handed as I am able when I see editors in stressful situations. Often I am somewhat successful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I think I have done what was asked sir. Is this much better? :) TheOtherWrexham (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheOtherWrexham I imagine you have, but you have not lined to anything to give me a clue 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Help improve the project

Hi, I have a big request for you. I created a project a long time ago. It was rejected because of the sources. SafariScribe suggested what to improve and I did so. I wanted him to check if the project is good but I guess he doesn't have much time. I noticed you on SafariScribe in the discussion and decided to write, would you help me take care of the project? Please. Gordonwg (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gordonwg I help take care of Wikipedia. I'm prepared to see what you have in mind. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, here is a link to the page. There are many sources from the Segebrecht page, I have written permission from the author of the page to use all the information from his page. I also have an original Segebrecht military book and the same information is written in it. Sorry for my poor English.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Willfried_Segebrecht Gordonwg (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gordonwg  Done by commenting on the draft. Thank you for asking me. Good luck. You have work to do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really understand all this technically ;) But I'll try to change it. Thank you for such a quick and nice reaction and comment. Can I ask when I start making changes? Gordonwg (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gordonwg now is the right time. We all start knowing nothing. WP:AFCHD is a good place to ask if you get stuck 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding back to AFC List

How are you doing today? It's been a while here. I accepted this draft But I noticed it read more of an essay and too detailed for Wikipedia so I drafted it, I have also notified the creator. However the issue I'm having now is I want to add it back to AFC submission. How do I go about that? Tesleemah (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Anther editor has submitted it. In the future consider adding {{Draft}} to it. When yoiu preview it nothing much useful is seen. When you save the addition it products a submit button, as if feom nowhere. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Tesleemah (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah When. we draftify it is not necessary for us to resubmit for review, however.

If I choose to resubmit I also decline with my draftification rationale as my rationale to decline.

The essential part of draftification to to ensure that the relevant editor(s) know the location of the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Gotten, thank you Tesleemah (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah: Your AFCH script also has the option to submit for review, and lets you choose to whom you submit on behalf of. I've got a draft in the draft space without the AFC template if you wanted to try it out, you'll see the comment (yellow) or submit (blue) and then some options. Kindly, (talk page stalker) Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you @Bobby Cohn

I can't find the option to submit for review, maybe because I'm using mobile. Tesleemah (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In re: Another user's PAID/COI and AI editing

Responding here at your request.

This is difficult and I'm not sure there's more to be said on that particular user's talk page. This is exacerbated by the fact that you are likely not talking to them but rather an LLM and the person to whom you wish to be talking to isn't heading your advice, but rather acting as an intermediary in your discussion with LLM. Any response is also hampered by the fact that any content contributions outside their talk page seems to have been nuked (all but 27 of their 43 contributions at the time of writing).

However, based on the breadcrumbs it does appear that this is a clear cut case of COI/PAID. I know that my impressions of PAID more closely align with the reading that you have given, I think if you own the company that's PAID and I rely on the phrasing that you cited on the warning, "broadly construed". And I don't see how we can include unpaid internships but not the direct benefit of a company a user owns. I am aware, however, that this may sometimes be a minority viewpoint, and have received pushback in off-Wiki locations (IRC and Discord) about this interpretation, but my tendency is to leave the uw warning regardless. In my experience, UPE is often conducted alongside PROMO/SPAM violations and will therefore often lead to a ban on the later without having to delve into the proof of the former.

I wish I had more to add; if I find the time I may try and reason with the user on their talk page but I may also wait to see more content creation. The relevant content pages (sandbox, draftspace) have been watchlisted in the event I can jump in and proffer specific advice. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

And now, in between my writing this message and re-opening the talk page, there seem to be legal threats. They've been warned already by @Theroadislong, I can't help but wonder given their previous block history a long-term block is in order. At least, based on my understanding of the block policy, they ought to be blocked at least and until the legal threat is withdrawn? As I'm presently uninvolved, I'm not sure this would be my place to take to ANI, but I'm not sure if there's better spot. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn I must admit that I have not AI checked their responses. I think your remaining uninvolved would be beneficial, simply because you don't tend to succumb to knee jerk blocking. Perhaps it might be better to leave this to another tpw, yours or mine, certainly for the moment.

At present, apart from the weird and sudden escalation to a legal threat, the editor is harmless, and harm can be dealt with easily enough should it happen. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn No, they just doubled down on legal threats. That escalates the harm, somewhat. I think I am heading to ANI with this one. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Though it may be beside the point now given the most recent developments, I would have to say the focus on the content and almost admitting to AI is more definitive proof of using the LLM than the AI checkers. This may be an area where I would differ from you, I tend not to put too much weight on the various AI checkers as I think they have a tendency for false positives. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the tools are there yet, and I tend to rely on my own senses for what is obviously AI cruft, unless of course there are the tell-tale signs where the editors hasn't even done the bare minimum of substitution where prompted by the LLM. It is more of a I know it when I see it standard, which is too bad, admittedly. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn I recognise the unreliability. I use it to see if I am being oversensitive. Thank you for the reminder, we need to remember these things. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, and I don't mean to imply that I had any issue with your editing. Different tools for different people, but I can't argue with the results. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn no implication seen. But the reminder is useful always, nonetheless. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)