Hi RandomEditor6772314! I noticed your contributions to Sexual selection and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

[...] [Deleted by host because it's old now, and to clear space on Talk page]

Happy editing! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you using AI chatbots for your editing? If so, you should read through the information at Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence resources. If not, no problem. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely NOT, not in any way whatsoever, NEVER have I used one (in any site, or for any purpose, ever). "Chatbots", "AI", and LLMs, are garbage mass-theft machines. The output is garbage, and the theft ("training" data) is an unethical scam and disgrace.

As a side note: I want to point out that if my editing or comments "looks like a chatbot", well, we're getting into really unpleasant waters since I am probably one of the most militantly anti-AI people you would ever meet. In other words, we both now know that you thought/suspected a 100% human (absolutely 0% AI whatsoever) looked like AI, so, uh... the paranoia is only going to worse in the future.

Now I want to ask you what bland(? tedious(?) fluffy(?) low-substance(?) thing I wrote that made you think it was AI. But instead of asking that, I'll just say: I definitely have way more energy and interest in writing/criticizing/examining crap on the internet than most people, exhaustively, so I assume it was something about that vibe that made you think "AI". But no, I'm the real thing: wordy human. (And I've usually used a dry tone, I guess, in wiki writing?) RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You just happen to have a writing style similar to chatbots. You use lots of bold, often write really long edit summaries, and in some cases you have accidentally used *Markdown* for italics. All of these are things typical of AI chatbots. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I bold some of the words I think are most important, for people "perusing" and the kind of people who complain about "a lot of words" (etc). If their eyeballs only see one thing, or need sign-posting, well.

Accidental markdown... I've typed a ton of comments on reddit, and (relatively) few on wikipedia.

Long edit summaries, personally I dislike short summaries, I want to be able to get a picture of what someone actually did in the text, and see the posture (so to speak), without having to scroll/parse through the 'diff'. Especially with how incompetent and deceitful many wiki users are.

I think you should be using things like 1) slop fluff phrasing and empty cliches 2) comments that are basically *exactly like* some other comment 3) account history (etc) as the big clues, rather than bold or markdown mistakes. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I usually write long edit summaries as well. Sorry for the inconvenience! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Rihanna, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to people's comments and arguments, not to themselves or to their person (which is the definition of "personal attack").

A personal attack does not mean a critical comment toward a person about their public comments and arguments. "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people" is exactly what I did. I think you might be confused about the nature of "Reply" which has to be directed to a person, though I was clearly talking about and criticizing the flawed logic in posted words/comments?

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're accusing other editors of being racist. Final final warning now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I only saw your edits from the Rihanna talk page, but it is clear you are passionate about editing and getting things right. However, I noticed that you are mostly focused on policy and talk pages. I suggest you focus more on working on articles, and find projects that inspire you, rather than getting into contentious discussions on talk pages (that you might not know much about). I know that my time on this project feels much more productive when I am expanding articles. Feel free to revert or remove this if you want to ignore my advice. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RandomEditor6772314. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RandomEditor6772314, I highly recommend that you participate in the ANI discussion, you have every right to be involved in a discussion about your editing and any possible sanctions that may arise as a result.

If you don't join in, then decisions will be made without you having any say in what happens to your own account. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1989 Jamba Lockheed Hercules crash, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]