User talk:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Heads up on Islamophobic sock Prince of Roblox vandalism

Hi there this user , and this user are sock accounts of Prince of Roblox they have very typical ways of editing always based on Islamophobic edits and highly anti-Pakistan and Pro India and Pro Hindu edits just report on the sock investigation page they are well known and admins block this vandal quickly and revert asap as they create dozens of accounts to edit again the articles need protection I think as they just come back as they have no life 90.213.219.215 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

, I wanted to wait until they had more than a single edit each. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

What should I call you in comment threads

fifteen? something else? of course, hopefully we can interact at happier places than ANI as well. although thank you for your constructive contributions there and WT:AIC NicheSports (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

fifteen is fine, 15,224 is another common choice, and fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four works as well if you'd like to pad out the (+bytecount). Thanks for your LLM cleanup efforts also. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
fifteen it is! NicheSports (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Voice123

Hey, there. There's a discussion over at WP:RSN#Voice123 as a source if you are interested in it. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Emily Neves

Hello again. I do apologize if I was a little desperate and confused in my good-faith efforts to improve the Emily Neves article, especially with regards to finding potential sources for her early life. Also, I've opened a discussion at Talk:Emily Neves#B-class/GA-class efforts, if you are interested in helping out of course. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Guess you're from Pittsburgh, right?

Just Googled up the ZIP code minutes ago. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

​A reasonable guess! But there's no relation to any ZIP codes. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sum of eleven squares

You're the sixth one, is that it? Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no relation to any numeric sequence or mathematics in general.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Response to your message on my talk page.

I noticed your message about my edit on the Battle for Dream Island page about my edit adding in Flash-animated. This hasn't been an issue with other web series Wikipedia pages? Eddsworld has the same "Flash-animated" marking too though suddenly no one bats an eye? None of the first paragraph in Battle for Dream Island contains any sources to begin with so I'm lost here. ConeKota (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@ConeKota As explained on your talk page, the lede needs to follow WP:LEADCITE, which requires that all information in it be supported. Either with a citation in the lede, or the information being present and supported with a citation in the body. This edit has no supporting citation in the lede, and is not present nor supported in the body.
This hasn't been an issue with other web series Wikipedia pages? – If you find other pages with information that is not compliant with WP:V and WP:LEADCITE, then please be bold and correct it. The fact that there exist other places in the encyclopedia where the verifiability policy has failed to be upheld, does not mean we can ignore it elsewhere. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Also I would like to point you to the broader WP:LEAD guideline, and specifically highlight the first sentence which states that a lead is a summary of [an article's] most important contents. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

TAIV and GMC

Saw you're pretty on top of the GMC SPI stuff—certainly one of the more interesting LTAs I've encountered. I was looking at the policy for TAIV, and I think it may be worthwhile setting up a "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Example/TAIV disclosure" page for that case so TAIV evidence can be discussed a bit more openly before being revdel'd as soon as the matter is addressed by an admin. Let me know your thoughts. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The policy exception allowing for such public disclosures when reasonably believed to be necessary is somewhat vague and doesn't fill me with confidence, depends on if an SPI for a long-term actor like GMC is an appropriate [venue]. An LTA page is the only type explicitly stated, and those feature confirmed instances, whereas active SPI reports feature probable instances. I'd run it by one of the ombuds first.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Promotional or encyclopedic?

Hello Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four! Not quite sure if to best raise that here or at the respective talk page(s): You have (among others) undone contributions to List of fictional religions based on WP:PROMO and collapsed some suggestions. I don't really know about these types of issues, could you perhaps say more on what's the basis? I've seen that that user has focussed on contributions but that one author, so the conflict of interest hangs in the air. But having looked at it without prior knowledge, I would have thought that the inclusion in List of fictional religions was warranted, being based on a presumably reliable academic paper, which has been cited 33 times according to Google Scholar, with the topic also showing up in other reliable sources. So in case there was a conflict of interested, but the contribution was worthwhile anyway, what would be the way to handle that? Likewise I personally have no experience of how to identify LLM-generated content, but the suggestions seemed pretty specific (as well as reasonable), which to me suggested understanding of the topic rather than general understanding of language. Thanks for sharing your perspective! Daranios (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be glad to share my reasoning. What I found is that the KatieKat account has inserted 12 references to works by "Zoe Alderton" across multiple articles, sometimes even inserting Alderton into the text itself , and has inserted 0 references from any other sources. Then there is their other account at ~2025-31601-76 which inserted an additional 19+ references, with more insertions of Alderton and their book directly into article text, sometimes thrice in a single article .
I then evaluated their contributions to talk pages and found evidence of LLM use, some clearer signs of this are **markdown** , and hallucinations: (there are no "Media Influence" or "Examples" sections) (no "Jediism" in article, the suggested see also link to "related article" Religion in science fiction goes to a deleted article).
When considering the above, I found the pattern of edits fit the description of WP:REFSPAM, a form of promotional editing, and reverted the additions.
That said, if you believe that the edit to List of fictional religions, or any of the others, improve the encyclopedia, then please feel free to undo my reversion! And if you have any further questions I'd be happy to answer them. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the details! I did not realize the "hallucinations", showing me again how strong AI already is while having severe weaknesses at the same time. I have restored the Snapeism in the List of fictional religions with additional source for broader basis, as I believe in that scope it's warranted. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

An LLM cleanup fox for you!

For initiating the cleanup page template development with your suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup § Format for the noticeboard. We've sometimes disagreed about the implementation, but hopefully you see our conversations as constructive, and you were the one who got this going. My thanks!

NicheSports (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully the resulting templates will be helpful. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Aalam-e-Barzakh

Was this user ever filed in an SPI as it seems related to SCOT and Case No. 9? CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, their most interesting interactions are at Working Women (TV series), Chaand Raat, Neelofar, Yousuf Bashir Qureshi, Bilal Lashari, Case No. 9, and Mann Jogi (note the AFC/R use there). Not sure it's enough on behavior alone since SCOT socks are so prolific, but it might be enough for CU. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Argentina at the 2017 World Games

Hello,

I noticed that some information you removed from Argentina at the 2017 World Games was actually verifiable from the article sourced. Although I did not provide sources for everything—because the medals was already included in the boxes—I translated that content from the Spanish Wikipedia. I am involved in a project that focuses on translating articles from the Spanish Wikipedia.

Please take greater care when making edits. You could have opened a conversation before removing the content.

Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Orlando Davis,
WP:LEADCITE only applies when information is verifiable in the body, the information in the body was not. Additionally other information was added which was absent from the body in any form. Please avoid adding unverifiable information, it is the sole responsibility of the editor adding information to ensure that is is verifiable. You can read more about this requirement at WP:BURDEN, which is a part of the core WP:VERIFIABILITY policy.
Additionally your corrective edit has also failed to verify the information within, and despite the appearance of providing two different references, they both link to the same place, and that place also does not verify the added information. You are invited to remedy this by adding more citations per WP:BURDEN, or to self revert. If you wish to discuss this further then please start a discussion on the talk page and ping me to it. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Much of the material was verifiable in the source. It’s not that the information wasn’t sourced — it’s that you couldn’t find the source.
  1. LOS OLVIDADOS, by Ernesto Rodriguez III — on Olímpicos Argentinos (archived via the Internet Archive) — 20 July 2017
I do admit that there were a couple of sentences that weren’t in that source, which is why I removed them and supported the medals with another source:
  1. Medal history of The World Games — on International World Games Association (IWGA) official site. Available at:
You should have only removed content only if you knew for a fact that the source was fake, or removed only the sentences that weren’t backed — but not the entire section. It’s not a fake source. not finding the link is not enough. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
The only sentence that wasn't backed was " Argentina broke its record of medals, which was accomplished in 2009 in Kaohsiung and achieved the best performance in its history."
Which I have now backed with this source: La historia de Argentina en los Juegos Mundiales And you deleted 150 words, when there appears to be 15 words that were not sourced. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the reference, Ernesto Rodriguez III, Ernesto. (2017,July 07). "LOS OLVIDADOS." proved to be entirely unlocatable for me despite many efforts. I'd like to take a moment to compare it against the contemporary article for posterity:
  • It was Argentina's eleventh World Games – This would be very difficult for the source to support, since it opens by stating it is la décima edición, or "the tenth edition", of the World Games. I am using a model-based translation service though, so perhaps it is incorrect.
  • one of 102 countries – Source only stated más de un centenar de naciones, or "more than a hundred", maybe another translation issue on my end.
  • only athletes who could fund their own trips were able to compete – According to the source Elizabeth Soler did not self-fund.
  • Argentina won six medals ... – Wasn't in source, nor supported in body.
  • Argentina broke its record of medals, which was accomplished in 2009 in Kaohsiung – Wasn't in source, nor in body.
Thank you for adding additional references and changing information to meet WP:V. There do still exist verifiability issues (eleventh World Games, 100 countries, fund their own trips), but good progress has been made.
Concerning the edit summary for Special:Diff/1324347293 I re-added information in the intro about the 27 male athletes and 16 females, since it is in the body of the article, I would like to again point you towards WP:LEADCITE, which states that citations may be forgone in the lead to avoid redundant citations. If the information in the body is uncited, then there are no redundant citations to avoid, and a citation needs to be provided to satisfy WP:V. (in this particular instance Olímpicos Argentinos also supports the information, so this guidance is for future edits)
If you have found this situation disagreeable, then I would suggest taking steps to ensure that information that is added in the future is verifiable from the first edit. Any further discussion on this topic can be held on the article's talk page, but not here.
Thank you for helping to improve the encyclopedia! fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
LOS OLVIDADOS, by Ernesto Rodriguez III — on Olímpicos Argentinos (archived via the Internet Archive) — 20 July 2017
What do you mean? Orlando Davis (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I've since seen that you provided that reference, the comparison above is that reference against the contemporary article. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
@Orlando Davis you are requested to refrain from further commenting about this on my talk page, the discussion has become unproductive. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
No problem. Have a good night. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For the leadership and work at AINB. Thank you fifteen NicheSports (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Kinda sorta related. Have you ever thought about becoming an admin? We could really use someone at LLMN with your combination of good judgement, wide skillset (SPI, templates, etc.), and decisiveness. Could cut down on some of the time spent at ANI. NicheSports (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
    Having the tools would be nice of course, but there's no chance I'd be able to attain adminship. Editors analyzing my contributions won't be impressed: no content work, edit count greatly inflated by reverts and templating, and majority of projectspace participation is on dramaboards. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Howdy

What is your ideal set of policies on LLMs? Why do you oppose the llm-user user right idea? I'm not married to it myself. NicheSports (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

On top of the typical issues, there are some unsolvable systemic problems with LLMs that cannot be avoided even if the user is perfectly eternally vigilant. I've elaborated on this in three comments at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 25#Delving deep into the key aspects of WikiEd's new AI training materials that signify enduring stuff. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

About the edit on Şükrü Özyıldız

Hi. I saw your message reverting my edit. I want to clarify that I am a human editor, not a bot.

I want to be honest: I did use AI tools, but **only to automatically format the citations**, because the wiki-code is very different between languages and it is hard to do manually.

However, the information is real. I am not an expert, just a learner trying to do things ethically. I have spent hours updating the actor's data on **Wikidata** and improving the Spanish and Catalan articles. I simply wanted to bring that verified data to the English version.

My English is a bit rusty, so I used translation tools for the text. That is likely why it sounded "robotic" to you. But the facts are correct.

Instead of deleting everything, could you please help me correct the grammar? I really want to fix the article with good data. Thanks.

Llimerol (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not use LLMs to generate comments like this, we want to hear your own words and thoughts as you've had them (and LLMs hallucinate, I never said nor implied "robotic"), see WP:AITALK.
I did use AI tools, but **only to automatically format the citations** – From a glance at the text I can tell you this is not correct. Perhaps this is what the model was initially prompted to do, but it's not all the model did.
But the facts are correct. – The edit cites WP:IMDB, a depreciated source, 17 times. Even then, IMDB still often fails to support the associated text. The entire edit fails WP:V, which our policy on biographies of living people requires we adhere strictly to. If the content of that edit is reflective of the quality of the Spanish Wikipedia's article, then that article should in no way be translated to enwiki.
Instead of deleting everything, could you please help me correct the grammar? – Even discounting the pervasive verifiability issues, most editors, myself included, have very little desire to cleanup after LLM output. Removal is the appropriate remedy in this instance.
Thank you for discussing this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for such detailed comments. I apologize, and first I will manually review the article and replace the IMDB references with reliable Turkish secondary sources (mainstream newspapers like Hürriyet and Milliyet, and official websites of broadcasters like ATV and Kanal D, etc.). Llimerol (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Edited Peshwa with sources and mentions. Hope it is cleared now. Andybro03 (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Hello. Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for your efforts as a Wikipedian, especially with regards to the AI cleanup, as well as wishing you a very joyous holiday season. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I also have a username name based on a number that's pretty similar!

Pretty neat, considering the fact that my name contains a similar number (16k, AKA sixteen thousand), and it's actually shorthand for "16k512e", AKA 16512e, which is read as "sixteen thousand five-hundred-and-twelve Euler's number", AND if you take out the e, it makes it 16512, which mathematically isn't too far away from 15224. I love coincidences, man. (man in a gender-neutral way, sorry if you didn't want me to refer to you as such) :) 16kTheFox (talk to me!) 21:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

On my Draft:Reze

Remove your comment in my draft, i admit i used AI on my first one, that's all Sunless067778 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I must decline, the comment is relevant context for any potential AFC reviewers since the G7 request has effectively hidden the page history. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

God Jul!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Reze Chainsaw Man

I literally rebuilt it from scratch, i can even show you my search bar of google for sources.Its getting bad that i need to start it over again because you flagged it Sunless067778 (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Do not recreate the draft a fourth time. Any further discussion about the content of the draft should be held on the draft's talk page, not mine. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Battle for Dream Island

WP:4WALL states it is acceptable to use "neutral cross references" to other articles. My mistake was I used the wrong template. Giovanni Potage (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it would be an improvement either way, such a change would make it harder for readers to see examples of names, and those provided examples are short and source supported.
Augmenting the existing examples with a crossreference would also negatively impact the flow of the text, but if you think the article would benefit, feel free to open a discussion and we can work towards forming consensus. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
@Giovanni Potage I've started a discussion on the talk page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

No lives matter

Got confused, sorry. should it be protected? Doug Weller talk 17:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, not at this time. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Ok Doug Weller talk 18:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for having my back on List of Battle for Dream Island episodes. When I made my revert, my browser for some reason published it before I was able to complete it. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ☎ 05:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Solomon Henderson and soyjak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Was already discussed on relevant article talk page, which is now deleted via AfD. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to add an archived copy of Henderson's online diary showing his soyjak content but it got removed as WP:PRIMARY.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Generally, citing primary sources is prohibited, unless in articles about — or relating to — the person/organization who wrote them; assuming the source in question isn't unduly self-serving, and what is written therein are basic, straightforward facts that are easily verifiable by anyone with access to said material. Giovanni Potage (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"one strike and you're out"

??? Takeonmetakeonme (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

It's unclear what your question is. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I think the user is referring to this edit. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Seems possible, in which case they've mixed me up with another editor. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
The editor in question would be Ltbdl (talk · contribs) as a matter of fact. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Our mutual acquaintance

Regarding this, I think any further edits from the suspected temps that even broadly aligns with previously observed patterns would permit a report over AIV. The CU/SPI corps are under a bit of strain, so I think passing a quacker like this over to the QRF at AIV is anything but a breach of procedure. Also, having been mightily impressed by your work lately, I've got to ask: do you have any plans on maybe taking on a bigger role on the project? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Likely right, I'm just generally hesitant to bring anything but the most crystal of cases to AIV. Ideally in this instance there would be more than that single contribution.
No plans on trying for a more privileged role, I'm not very active and most of my edits now are simple watchlist gnoming. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough. If you ever have more time, I think SPI would take you as a clerk. You're quite good. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Battle for Dream Island

Not to be nitpicky, but I did not unbolden "object show" in the lead. I merely added back the quotation marks that were removed without explanation. From my knowledge, no guideline prohibits surrounding bolded words in quotation marks, no? Giovanni Potage (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this edit added back any quotation marks, instead it re-bolded "object shows" in the lead. Since "object shows" is already bold in the "cultural impact" section, which is where object show redirects to, I removed the lead bolding. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Battle for Dream Island episodes § Featured List?. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Prince of Roblox sock account?

Hey Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four so I spotted two accounts which I am pretty sure are socks of prince of roblox Katua_on_top (same islamophobic username) editing same articles as previous sock and Money moe matters same edits on articles on food same old pro India edits I am sure they have other sleeper accounts waiting to edit these articles again so a semi protect will be necessary in my opinion. Thanks any input would be appreciated. GuptaShenastri (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Another one with the usual username and typical edits GuptaShenastri (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Filed a report, the disruption should be manageable without semi-prot. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Wk3v78k23tnsa AI

Regarding the cleanup thread for Wk3v78k23tnsa's AI edits, I've already contacted the user in question about it here. Just wanted to let you know. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Help:Archiving (plain and simple)

If you feel like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't but thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Consider though, that you are depriving your visitors of easy access to the wisdom and wit that has passed through here. I'm mostly kidding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of uncited content on articles in the Sunshine Coast area of Queensland

For some years, a series of IP accounts (behaviourly similar) has been adding these uncited facts to articles in this area, initially focussing on just a few articles, but after some of those were semi-protected, the problem just shifted to a much wider set of articles and expanded to adding a citation-needed template after their uncited facts. The behaviour can only be described as obsessive as most of their contributions are removed sooner or later. We do not seem to have any mechanisms to control this kind of behaviour (and certainly the introduction of temporary accounts has not done anything to slow it down). So thank you for your help in dealing with this ongoing issue. Kerry (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help, the actor I was tracking is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sennick4858, which appears to be who you're talking about. If you encounter any active instances feel free to ping me and I'll try to locate and undo any recent damage they've caused. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oddity

I noticed that you have more than 11 thousand edits, and you have yet to make a userpage. You really should. Why haven't you made one already? Theeverywhereperson talk here 16:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to, thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
In my opinion I think you are far too experienced to not already have a userpage. Theeverywhereperson talk here 16:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The lack of a user page is often a stylistic choice. Presence/absence of a user page does not imply experience. To see edit counts at a quick glance you could use User:Bugghost/Scripts/UserRoleIndicator. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I already know how many edits this person has, thank you, but their experience could be underestimated/potentially ignored due to the lack of a user page. As most people with thousnads of edits have userpages, it is such a glaring difference that they may become the first admin without a userpage, which is both a record and a potential curse, Aaron Liu. Theeverywhereperson talk here 15:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
There's myriads of admins (and thus of course experienced users) who do not have a user page. It is not a rare practice. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Agree 100%. Putting content on your User page is a personal choice and not an obligation. This user is clearly well aware of their options and their choice should be respected. Kerry (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
i am doing that, I was just pointing it out because I, personally, have never seen an experienced editor without a user page. Theeverywhereperson talk here 16:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered taking up a mop?

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. I think you would be a good administrator, and you appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!
Interested in becoming an administrator? Check out some RfA advice, or ask a nominator about next steps!

To add to NicheSports' barnstar above, you're brilliant. The lack of content doesn't bother me, I know you already understand PAGs and won't overextend into unfamiliar areas without learning about them first, but to satisfy others, just a WP:GA or two on whatever is usually sufficient. Regardless, keep up the good work, always good to see you around Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging words, but I'm not considering trying for adminship. I've no desire to fulfill the de facto prerequisite content work, and have been winding down my level of activity regardless. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Camoz

Hi, I'm writing you since we had interacted on this thread. Today I've asked for TAIV rights, and I almost immediately ran into these temporary accounts. It's quite clearly always him (if you want I can give you more details in private). What's the best course of action in these cases on en.wiki? Should I reopen the ANI thread asking for a complete block? (a complete block on en.wiki is necessary in order to ask for a global lock) --Friniate ✉ 16:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking the blocking admin Anachronist on their talk page to convert the block into a indef, they'll be able to see the page history for Taoist literature pre Camoz G7 and the obvious subsequent evasion. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! --Friniate ✉ 18:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Conciousness - Comment to your decision regarding deleting my model


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consciousness&oldid=1346824151

Hello Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, I understand you fully, that I might have Conflict of Interest (CoI), when adding my model, based on offical scientifiy paper from zenodo.org, in the the Consciousness article. You're absolutely right. Despite, what I don't understand is your hint regarding a "unreliable source". Zenodo.org belongs to CERN (https://home.cern/) and is officially supported by the European Union for supporting private independent researchers like me, who haven't access to academic resources like universities or institutes. Despite of these facts, you can read my article and convince yourself, if my model, based on statistical physics, might me more speculative than other models. I think it more reasonable and grounded on verifiable experiments such as EEG (Electroencephalography). But do what you and your friends want. Best regards Pascal Moser PascalMoser81 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Zenodo allows people to publish their own work without peer review, this is self publishing which makes it a non-reliable source. An example of a reliable academic source would be a peer reviewed paper published by a reputable journal. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your 12k+ edits in almost 4 years. Cheers! Volten001 ☎ 09:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been planning to take this guy to ANI

but still recovering from a bad episode yesterday when i was unconscious for several minutes due to low blood pressure. Luckily an ambulance was nearby. Tomorrow hopefully.Doug Weller talk 14:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hope you recover quickly, I'll look at the report when filed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Changed my mind. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Tyla’s siblings

The if you click on the second, and go to the comment section, Alaina says that they are 5 siblings and she has her own mother, but they all share the same father. The first link talks about the eldest sister and in the caption, she is tagged. There is NO existing source that accurately states the number of siblings Tyla has and who they are. Some sources say she has 4 siblings, but gives incorrect names, and incorrect birth order. Some sources state that she has 3 siblings. The ONLY accurate source is Tyla and her siblings saying it themselves. GrAmPaGe Edit FiXeRr (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

If the only source talking about it is Tyla and her siblings, then the information is simply undue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I have added another source. However, like I mentioned above, it does not state who they all are. Only one sibling is excluded. But the other two are about the missing sibling, who is the eldest. GrAmPaGe Edit FiXeRr (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Worth trying to revert SPI user?`

I saw you opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince Of Roblox on the user at 2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults who is likely a duck. Do you think I/we should try to remove their content additions? It seems relatively well sourced even if it isn't backed up in the article. (If the user gets SPI'd before you see this, disregard) Realtent (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If that account is blocked as a sock I'll WP:BANREVERT their edits, banned means banned.
That puppetmaster commonly pushes an anti-islam pov and is entirely non-neutral both with content additions and source selection. They do not accurately portray what information is due and what sources are reliable. Their abuse has been persistent and serious, and they are forbidden from editing here.
That said, in my experience there is little point in trying to revert that puppeteer while their account isn't blocked. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Good point, I'll leave it to you then. You evidently have more familiarity with the sockmaster anyhow. Realtent (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

question

will you retire from this account once you reach 15224 edits? Dani Bay (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Hi! Thank you for taking time to review the ‘Yeh Jo Halka Halka Suroor" page.’ I note that you added the notability template. I wanted to respectfully suggest that “Yeh Jo Halka Halka Suroor” merits standalone coverage when considered in their cultural and musical context. These works are not routine tracks but are foundational works within the qawwali tradition, with enduring influence and cultural significance. Its also pertinent given the modern gamut of remakes that often do not credit the original. Much like Western classical works such as individual symphonies that have individual pages, it would be remiss not have standalone pages for Nusrat’s notable works. The page has also been also referenced appropriately. I would be grateful for your advice/guidance on how to resolve, such that a notability template is no longer required. Thank you! Jdavidson012 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I restored the tag when banreverting a sockpuppet, banned editors are prohibited from making edits including removing templates. I have no opinion on the tag and another editor who isn't banned may remove it if they wish. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

On the surface it looks disruptive

How is it you remove a source and replace it with a CN template? ] Toddst1 (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It was a revert of this edit, the cn tag was there previously. I checked the added reference and it did not appear to directly verify the accompanying information (unless evaluated in a synthy way), and so reverted the edit with a summary of Non-verifiable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Template:Prod llm/dated

Hi! Sorry for the edit conflict, I was also working on creating the same template at the same time. I sincerely apologize for the matter, and you are free to revert to your version if you wish so. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Oof. I didn't mean to reply above the discussion on the CfD about people named in the Epstein files. Thank you for catching my error! NesserWiki (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick thank you

I was doing a casual scan to see if any G.-M. Cupertino socks had slipped through the drag net recently and came across your recent work against a different sockmaster on a page both had gone after. I wanted to thank you for your hard work in remedying sockpuppet disruption, even in cases where it is is several years old. Keep up the good fight, and feel more than welcome to ping me if you ever want assistance. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, though in this case I was acting to address a raised issue.
If you're sweeping for GMC then check out ~2026-25829-94 (maybe them, GMC has used that /16 before as a legacy IP in Oct 2025), ~2026-14338-89/~2026-16133-86/~2026-19545-44/~2026-14028-45/~2026-13851-60 (definitely, very obvious, /16 has been used before in Nov and April 2022), and see the TAs from 89.180.128.0/18 (the legacy contributions should look familiar too). fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, those are all our friend. If these pop back on, I think AIV is the next stop. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

False birth date

Hi, I'm having issues with the birth date of Robert The Bruce 11 Jul 1274 as it does not correspond with the baptism record's! All the baptism record's with batch number's and FHL microfilm number's that run the Bruce lineage have his birth date as 21 March 1274 born in Carrick, Scotland. https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:MM4X-C75 https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:M1JW-GJG https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:MBFZ-G6N https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:M9Z2-FZQ https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:MMLX-34V https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:M6JH-BPT https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:93GC-JZQ https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:99GM-FJH https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:MWHN-77R https://Familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:MFHZ-2R6 ~2026-28087-67 (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

FamilySearch isn't a reliable source since its user generated. See also WP:FAMILYSEARCH for a summary of prior discussions about this source. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
When there are batch number's and FHL number's it's not just people randomly entering information. Look I can see your all dodgy and are protecting your dodginess, good luck. ~2026-28087-67 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Every link you provided states the username of the person who submitted the information, and the source of the information is non-verifiable "Patron Submissions", the entries are plainly user generated content. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
With all due respect, please don't pull the wool over my eyes. ~2026-28087-67 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
There are FHL microfilm numbers 177,915 ? ~2026-28087-67 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please.
For the record I don't see any microfilm numbers in the provided links, but its my understanding that the FHL microfilm catalog contains copies of other sources. It is those original sources that would have to be cited inline, however baptismal records are primary sources and their use in this instance would likely constitute original research (specifically drawing connections between a centuries old record to a specific individual).
If you would like we could gather input from other editors at the reliable source noticeboard. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
In good faith, I'll give you a reliable source. I'm a living descendant of the actual Bruce family through Thomas de Bruce b. 1248-1306/7 Carrick, Scotland. My Big Y haplogroup is R-Y83746, name is Philip Bruce. Won't let me share email address, can you make a plan that I may share info with you?
Thank you ~2026-28087-67 (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
No need for an email, on Wikipedia "reliable source" has a specific meaning which is codified as a guideline, one facet of this guideline requires that a source needs to have been published and accessible to the public. I highly advise reading the reliable sources guideline and no original research policy, as personal or familial knowledge will near always fall into the latter. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Keperra

I re-instated the uncited content you deleted because I found some citations. I am not disagreeing with your decision to delete it in the first place as it was uncited. Kerry (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries. For background, that addition was the work of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sennick4858, I've seen that you've been reverting and cleaning up their edits across a lot of Australian locale articles for many years, thank you. If you happen to encounter Sennick (new disposable TA/acc making unsourced history section additions to Australian pages) feel free to give me a ping and I'll file a report and try to track and cleanup after them as needed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Ahh, another of those serial pests, but not one I'd recognised as such. I've got a few of my own that turn up regularly in my watchlist. Kerry (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Rollback of Army War College, Mhow edits

Hello, I noticed you rolled back my edits to Army War College, Mhow citing WP:BURDEN and WP:NOLLM. I would like to address both.

The content was sourced from official AWC documentation, not AI-generated. Citations were added for key claims and remaining claims were tagged {{citation needed}}. I would welcome discussion on the article Talk page about specific concerns before further reverts. Burblecrash001 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Burblecrash001 you've addressed neither concern. That edit was generated using an LLM, and using LLM to generate article content is not allowed, period. Stop using a model in this manner, failure to do so is likely to lead to future sanctions. Also, WP:BURDEN is not optional, you must provide supporting reliable sources, adding {{citation needed}} tags does not obviate this requirement (and large portions of your edit didn't even do that).
There is no content discussion to be had until these two fundamental issues are resolved, the edit must not be the result of model generation, and the edit must have supporting references. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for Daniel G Rego cleanup efforts

Just making the list of new articles practically broke me: I stand in awe that you were not only able to deal with them all, but got many of the article modifications as well! Well done. Any tips for a newcomer on how you did it? M kuhner (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of it is just dumb effort, sitting down and spending the time needed to manually go through contributions page by page, but there are some tools that help speed it up (and speed up editing in general).
  • Copy and paste as much as possible, most summaries and templates were, and use keyboard navigation when possible.
  • Navigation popups will let you quickly view diffs and page histories in a popup, as well as many other useful things. Something like this should a default, it's that useful.
  • wikEdDiff can make some diffs easier to understand, some not so much.
  • User scripts can help. I often use diff-permalink, diff-link and LiveDiffLink to make summary-friendly diff links easy to copy and paste. In this instance I frequently used versions of LiveDiffLink and ajax-undo that I modified to allow for a selected range of edits on a page's history to be reverted in place, and while I don't recommend trying to use the modified versions, ajax-undo is often useful as-is. DiffUndo can be useful to a point for untangling edits, though I didn't make much use of it this time.
  • If you're wanting to compile more tracking lists in the future, CCI has a tool called contribution surveyor which can generate a wikitext formatted list of an editor's contributions (set a date range, uncheck minor edits, set size to -999999), it was instrumental in helping create most of the pages seen in Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases.
​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't aware of some of those user scripts. One of them seems to be able to "re-apply" a diff, been looking for something like that for a while (have considered writing my own but javascript isn't my forte). --gurkubondinn 11:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
@gurkubondinn just a heads up, the modified ajax-undo works along with the modified LiveDiffLink, both are needed. You select a range of diffs, LiveDiffLink shows a convenient [[Special:Diff/123/456]] link for that range (nice to have on its own for a few reasons), and ajax-undo uses that link to provide an undo button that works without leaving the page. It's subject to the usual undo issue where if even a single character in the affected lines was changed outside of the selected range, the undo will fail.
While I've not encountered any issues with this modification, I do not know javascript, so user beware. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I hadn't tried using it yet, and LiveDiffLink also looks like it should be very useful for me. User will beware and not use it somewhere real damage could be done. --gurkubondinn 19:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

LTA close-downs

Thanks for putting your foot down on the recent proliforation of time-wasting queries on the Ref desks. I tend to (over?) assume good faith, and have been answering (sometimes refuting) some of them where I though an interesting point was discernable or a misconception needed to be squashed, but was myself becoming increasingly suspicious; many of the queries were oddly vague or framed (as if the querant was not fluent in English, and using translation software, or was being deliberately obscure), and some of the follow-up questions increasingly had an LLM flavour.

I wonder – did you have some background evidence from actual IPs (invisible to me, of course) or other metadata to confirm the link to a previous LTA (I'm not curious about the details, just the fact), or did you base your decision purely on the queries' content and style?

Regards {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

For reasons I'd rather not get into any specifics beyond what's in the ANI report (which may answer your question already!). Also, I suggest reading the LTA case linked there. Thank you for helping out at the teahouse and refdesk. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Prod removed

If someone removed Prod, you can not reinstate it, this is the procedure for uncontroversial prod deletion. One needs to follow the procedure of nominating for deletion. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@BilboBeggins this is incorrect, those are not normal WP:PRODs, they are WP:LLMPRODs which have specific requirements which must be met before they can be removed. Those requirements are described at WP:LLMPRVOBJ. Repeated failure to adhere to the processes as described there will likely be met with sanctions. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Then why name it prod? Prod is for uncontroversial deletion.
I cite "Any editor can revert presumptive removal"
Personally, I don't find this good. Anyone can put a label on article that it is LLM generated and easily delete it through PROD, which is not a transparent procedure. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Reverts can be made after the process described at WP:LLMPRVOBJ is followed fully, repeated failures to do so will likely be met with sanctions. LLMPROD/LLMPRV was adopted following overwhelming community consensus to do so . There are criteria that must be met before an admin will action an LLMPROD, so it cannot be applied to just any article.
In the future please take care to read banners before removing them. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

email me

hey, email me or enable your own email. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

If there is something that really can't be discussed openly I can, but I'd like to have a notion of what it is first.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes it is things that can't be discussed openly. But judging by the SPI that you filed (thanks for that btw), you've figured most of it out on your own. Since it's been brought up publicly now, I can at least say that the /48 is more interesting than the /64 (and the /32 is too wide as a whole, seems to catch at least one other editor that is making occasional constructive edits in other topic areas). Looking at adjoining /32s could reveal something, but it's a time consuming task (the AS number is also useful). ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
There's a fresh TA on the /64 from yesterday that's worth keeping an eye on. ISPs will often allocate rotating /64s to an enduser, but it's not a hard rule or anything. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Didn't check for specifics at the time, just saw that the IPs are announced in a /32 so I sifted through that. Smallest range that captures the whole group currently is a /40, no clue if that's a stable internal allocation or not (probably stable). fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Probably semi-stable (based on my experience working on similar systems), but I don't want to stuff too many beans up my nose. Good point about the /40 though. The /32 captures most of the current disruptions, you just have to apply some common sense filtering because there appears to be at least one constructive user there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Found a few more TAs that you missed in the SPI:
Don't think there's any purpose to adding them to the SPI, but we can get consensus to apply LLMPRV in AINB if we need to. They've both made relatively few edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, I think the prvs you've applied are defensible as-is. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

you made a mistake with vedang Raina's but I sourced it!

I sourced it now--vedang Raina himself said in a video that his father directed the film horror story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0ML3QM74w

can't make that up! Voraciousdolphins (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Removing unverified content isn't quite a mistake, but thank you for finding an WP:ABOUTSELF source. If you could, it would be helpful if you would use the {{cite AV media}} template along with the |time= parameter to specify where in the video the information is stated. If you're not comfortable with switching the template, you can just tell me the timestamp I'll add it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
sorry for the rudeness! the timestamp is 5:48, I would appreciate it if you could change it. thanks very much. Voraciousdolphins (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
No worries, ref fixed up in Special:Diff/1359738412. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Travis Bazzana played junior baseball at Ku-Ring-Gai Stealers

Hi, apparently my entry to the Travis Bazzana page was removed because I failed to include a citation. What would suffice as a citation? Would a link to a news item on the Stealers' website suffice? https://www.stealers.com.au/2014/09/01/stealers-junior-travis-bazzana-recently-represented-australia-with-distinction-at-the-u13-cal-ripken-baseball-world-series/ or https://www.stealers.com.au/2014/06/26/stealers-junior-travis-bazzana-to-represent-australia/ ~2026-25919-69 (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-25919-69 the Stealers website could be an appropriate source, but neither of those links appear to entirely support this edit, specifically neither of them say that he left Ku-Ring-Gai in 2016. Generally secondary sources are preferred to establish information is due, but if the year is omitted then I think a brief mention of their time with Ku-Ring-Gai would be fine with those sources. (also, here's an archive link for that first url which is dead)
You can see referencing for beginners for a guide on how to add a reference yourself, but if you have any trouble just message me here and I can try to add one for you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I've removed the year added in this edit since it was unsubstantiated, as mentioned above. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Our Lady of Divine Providence Chapel, Kabul when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 14:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice (and no need to ping me thrice). As as heads up you're likely to see this happen more in the future if you're not already, as edits to existing pages may be reverted without review per WP:LLMPRV.
Speaking to my own process, I do check to ensure edits contain substantive changes and try to only revert changes made by the user in question. For example, at Our Lady of Divine Providence Chapel, Kabul the previous infobox fixes which were made between edits by Sparks19923 were preserved. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Reverting articles

I've noticed that you have reverted many of the Indo-Pak military articles, i have edited as i am not extended confirmed, and wanted to inquire whether an exception could be made for the "Sargodha Airfield Complex", as it is a very low importance article, not under protection, and i derived lots of info from both Indian and Pakistani sources to extend the 6th-7th september raid section. I apologize for any inconvenience i caused as i reverted your reversals without reading the talk page message but then fixed them back to original, unedited.Dgk1278 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you asking, but that's not an edit I'm comfortable taking responsibility for. Though there is another way, as while the extended confirmed restriction does restrict most direct editing and even discussion of a topic, there is an allowance for non-ec editors to make edit requests on article talk pages provided they are not disruptive. My suggestion would be that before making any requests, be sure that the suggested edit meets the neutrality, no original research and verifiability policies, and when making the request lead with the fact that you're doing so due to WP:CT/IMH.
As an alternative you could continue editing normally (do not game the permission!) about topics which are not restricted until you naturally become extended confirmed, and then you can re-implement the edit on your own. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, no worries, ill re-contribute once extended confirmed. Dgk1278 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Suspicious articles

Hi there!

Sorry to bother but I've stumbled across articles which just doesn't sit quite right with me.

These are Alexandru Philippide, Văcărești Prison, Vintilă Weiss, A. L. Zissu, Mișu Benvenisti. The leads are long and unsourced. A couple of them add details which just seems unnecessary, and overall they follow a sort of pattern from what I see.

Don't want to jump into conclusions just yet, but more eyes the better.

PeepeeDino (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out to me in those (though they are a bit long), and a couple are from the pre-LLM era. As for citations, leads don't have to have them so long as the information within is supported in body, see MOS:LEADCITE. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Ah, noted then.
Citation wise, I did notice irregularities on how some of them were named and all that. I'm guessing that's just a personal editing habit huh? Not too keen at looking at the text itself but whenever I feel something's off I check the source code. It's a hit or miss system and I do think I've been hitting misses lot more.
Thanks for checking either way!
PeepeeDino (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
I think it would've helped if I mentioned I was going through Za2530's contributions. Should've started with that to be honest. The account is almost a decade old so it's really a stretch.
PeepeeDino (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm assuming you meant Dahn. If you're going to be reviewing article text like this I'd suggest checking out mw:Who Wrote That? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)