Archives

Archive 1, 3-18-06 thru 3-18-07 Archive 2, 3-18-07 thru 4-13-08 Archive 3, 5-8-08 thru 12-31-10 Archive 4, 1-1-11 through 12-31-18 Archive 5, 1-1-19 through 12-31-23 Archive 6, 1-1-24 through 12-31-25

My mistake; I swore I was reverting the LTA's edit. Must be the long day. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright; it happens. --Sable232 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if you already saw, but a user named GaryJAllen has been messing with lots of auto pics. Some are helpful, a lot are not. I noticed you already warned this user about this behavior, and yet it has continued. Do you think it's time to take this to WP:ANI yet? It's obviously disruptive. Cutlass^Ciera 12:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the WikiProject Automobiles thread on this. It seems like this issue recently isn't just this editor. I'm thinking there should be some sort of sanctions on photo changes considering how often it occurs, and how often it escalates into DE. Cutlass^Ciera 13:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any action would be taken at AN/I. As I mentioned in the WikiProject thread, it's extremely difficult to get any action taken on editing like that - especially so when what he's mostly been doing in recent days is reverting a temporary account who is almost certainly someone evading an indefinite block. Those reverts are justifiable for that reason (although if he has conclusive evidence that the TA is EurovisionNim like he claims, he should take that either to SPI or AN/I). --Sable232 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I had expected, GaryJAllen was a sockpuppet of Democfest. I reverted some of their image disruption, although much of it is still in place. Cutlass^Ciera 14:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutlass: thanks for figuring that out and getting the situation taken care of. I suppose that explains why GaryJAllen accused me of having a vendetta the moment I started interacting with him - he wasn't new here. At least future socks should be easier to detect now.

On a related note, EurovisionNim seems to have left (for the time being) now that all of his TAs have been reported to SPI. That said, both of them will probably be back. --Sable232 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately vehicle LTAs are rather persistent.

Democfest used a clever method of socking to avoid detection - each of his socks served a different interest. It clearly was working because a few of the blocked accounts had been editing for over a year. I suppose if we see another Australian vehicle image disruptor we can expect it to be one of the two. Cutlass^Ciera 19:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, the mass image wars have continued, and I'm not sure what needs to happen to end them. On the Hyundai i30 article, there's been mass edit warring between lots of Western Australia-based TAs and other users. This eventually led to one of these TAs claiming that we were somehow corresponding on WhatsApp, which is an app I never have used.

What do you think needs to be done about this? I'm honestly fed up with it at this point. Cutlass^Ciera 12:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutlass: I am 95% sure that this Western Australia-based series of TAs is EurovisionNim evading his block (and topic ban). Getting those TAs and the underlying IP range(s) blocked would be the thing to do. --Sable232 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks. Cutlass^Ciera 22:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sable232,

I know I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia and I have made a lot of contributions to various Minnesota, Wisconsin, and general military history pages since November 2025 and previously as an IP user. I noticed that you wrote a fraudulent sourcing complaint to WP:ANI yesterday evening. I wanted to get the chance to talk it out on your talk page since you neglected to apparently follow the WP:DR steps by first messaging me on my talk page and addressing your issues there instead of directly posting it to WP:ANI.

First and foremost thanks for brining up the issue of citations. I am aware that sometimes when using the automatic citation tool while creating citations, especially while copy and pasting from a URL, sometimes the auto tool does not cite the material correctly and I try to fix it when I catch it. Such was the case with the Hewitt L. Thomas article that I don't think you genuinely looked through all the sources in-depth before making your WP:ANI post. I understand that maybe I worded some of the sentences incorrectly or paraphrased, but the mature thing to do would have been to message me on my talk page rather than go directly in for administrator intervention.

Second, my AfC submissions have all been done out of good intentions and follow WP:AGF and it has never been my intention to mislead anyone or cause issues here on Wikipedia. I generally write from a WP:NPOV and largely have used WP:RS in the majority of my AfC submissions. I do want to stress that I am an accredited historian and scholar with a Masters (MA) in History. While I am still somewhat new to Wikipedia as an editor, that doesn't give you the permission to WP:BITE or WP:HOUND my articles, which can be considered harassment as per WP:HA and lacks basic WP:CIV. I understand that some of my older articles may have poor grammar, but as the Stefen 𝕋ower stated in your post, I have made great improvements since then. That all being said, I am a bit offended that you make the accusation that I am posting WP:FICTREF when in actuality it might just be a simple citation error on my behalf when using the automatic citation tool or use the Citer Toolforge tool. If that is the case then I am sorry and will be adding citations manually in the future if that helps. For the majority of my articles (which are either stubs, B, or C Class) I do in fact use WP:RS if you've had the time to look at them. I just wanted to leave my two cents here to explain that I am not a hallucinating chatbot and I do not use large language models in my research. I am simply a relatively new Wiki editor who has a huge passion for history and wants to do their best in sharing history and contributing towards the improvement of various historical pages. I hope this clears up any misgivings you may have had for me and my contributions. Thanks so much.

-HappyHistorian1862. HappyHistorian1862 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bring it to WP:DR because it is not a dispute per se, it is a serious article integrity issue and there is a high likelihood of needing wider input. If you're new to Wikipedia, you may not be aware that editors are responsible for every edit made using an automated tool, the tool itself is not. Great care must be taken with them to ensure they're working as intended.

I did not suggest you weren't editing in good faith, and I'm sorry if what I wrote could be construed that way. I laid out the issues as I found them. I am not hounding you - I see every article that the WikiProject Minnesota banner is added to, which includes a substantial amount of your contributions. I mentioned the grammatical issues only to say that they show it to be unlikely for the articles to be LLM-generated, I was not trying to connect it to the issue at hand outside of that.

I replied in the AN/I thread in regards to the issue of accurate sourcing. --Sable232 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

- Sable232,

Sounds good. Going forward I will try to be more cautious and careful in terms of my citation work. So far I thought I have been doing decent and pretty well-researched work, but maybe the Hewitt L. Thomas article isn't a very good representation of my work. I know you have made contributions to much older works, such as the Hauenstein Brewing Company, and have followed a lot of my Minnesota related contributions since creating this account as I've seen you from time to time in the contributions lists. I really appreciate the sincerity of the citation issue and I will be working in earnest to fix issues if you are able to place Template tags on articles where you see them. I hope I can keep editing on here and contributing towards Minnesota history and political articles as it is something I am very knowledgeable of and passionate about. No harm intended in any of this and I hope we can work with each other and others in the community to remediate the issue. Thanks again. HappyHistorian1862 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, About you removing this Oldsmobile logo from the Oldsmobile article, can I add it back to the main image, or should I put it in the Corporate Logo (Logo evolution). You can tell me if I should put it in one of those two places.

Thanks Again 2000chevymontecarlo (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GMC Sprint is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMC Sprint until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 12:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I didn’t realise you already participated Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 13:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the

IN-PERSON Minnesota Wikipedia User Group Meeting Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 @ 1 to 3:30 PM (CT) Location: Lake Monster Brewing, 550 Vandalia Street #160, Saint Paul, Minnesota Meet, converse, and have a refreshing beverage with fellow Wikipedia editors and enthusiasts. All guests are welcome. If you don't wish to receive these invitations anymore, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With how much socking and disruption occurs on this topic, and has occurred for the 20 years that this has been an issue, I am thinking there needs to be stricter restrictions around it. I know this might prevent some helpful edits, but the volume of mass disruption and LTA abuse has gone on too long. Maybe you could help out with this. Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 15:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there should be restrictions on adding your own images to car articles, without an exception. Maybe it could be raised on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions? It's been repeatedly disruptive and shouldn't have to come up again. Is there anything else you could think of? I know it's not explicitly confined to vehicle images but some of the more obvious disruption happens there. I can think of about twenty editors who add their own images/exclusively replace images with their preferred vehicle photographer to articles in a disruptive manner. Cutlass^Ciera 15:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers has suggested to slightly alter the proposal by instead introducing restrictions on reverting removals of own images to articles. I am aware that this might have some community pushback but if passed should help with the amount of disruption that occurs. If any more tweaks are needed, please let me know before I bring this up on the conventions talk page. Cutlass^Ciera 00:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having it on the project conventions page would make it useless - the wider community has been hammering away at that page for years now and I expect it to be nullified entirely in the not too distant future. If it isn't a clarification of a broader policy or guideline, it cannot be considered enforceable from an editing restriction standpoint.

The only way to impose editing restrictions as you've suggested would be for the community to arrive at a consensus that automotive images are a contentious topic under general sanctions. While that was proposed in passing once at AN/I, I'd be very surprised if the community did so - most Wikipedia editors don't care. Bull-Doser was probably the worst offender in the early days, and it took years for him to (barely) get community banned - and it was for original research, not his poor-quality images. Past attempts at getting him dealt with were met with "He's only trying to help, so what if the images are bad" and similar remarks. While the community is less tolerant of this now than they were in the 2000s, I still don't think there would be a consensus for enforceable restrictions on something that is inherently subjective.

That said, "an editor may not revert the removal of an image they uploaded" is narrow enough that it could find support - but I could see such a restriction being abused and doing more harm than good. The disruptive users could weaponize that to keep their disruptive changes from being reverted by the uploader of the good image they removed. These LTAs - EurovisionNim, Alex Neman, Democfest, Howellin, etc. - haven't been slowed much by being blocked, so they probably wouldn't even pay attention to general sanctions.

I'm not trying to dump too much cold water on this, because you're correct in that there's an issue. But anything imposed would require consensus from the community as a whole, not WikiProject Automobiles alone, and would be difficult to craft in a way that would put a damper on the problem. --Sable232 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think a CT around vehicles is well-warranted. The problem is, as you've said, the community does not care. I don't see any other option, and as you've said, there isn't an easy way to solve it. I just want something to be done eventually, but I'm not sure how to get there, and if the community will ever understand why it should happen.

Maybe the next time it makes its way to a noticeboard I could float the idea with a lot of context about how long it's been an issue. Thanks. Cutlass^Ciera 20:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Köppen climate classification Bambifan111 (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it. Nothing in that article gives a basis for assigning multiple classifications to a single place, so your assertion of "bordering on Dwa" is useless. --Sable232 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder. Köppen_climate_classification#Group_D:_Continental/microthermal_climates "Dwa = Monsoon-influenced hot-summer humid continental climate; coldest month averaging below 0 °C (32 °F) (or −3 °C (26.6 °F)), at least one month's average temperature above 22 °C (71.6 °F), and at least four months averaging above 10 °C (50 °F). At least ten times as much rain in the wettest month of summer as in the driest month of winter."

Also my edit does not assign multiple classifications to a single place. It merely says bordering on a different climate classification, there are many articles that say a climate borders on another climate classification.

• Ushuaia#Climate
• Ürümqi#Climate
• Newark,_New_Jersey#Climate
• Fargo,_North_Dakota#Climate

Bambifan111 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As the uploader of the old Chrysler logo that you re-added on the article, I must say that it was not "disruptive removal" as you stated on the edit summary, according to WP:NFCC: #3: "non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", and #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". None of them apply in this case. Fma12 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many car brand articles contain past logos. In fact, I restored it adjacent to text referring to that specific logo, and the current logo does not convey equivalent information, therefore, it does not violate NFCC #3. As such, I am restoring it again. --Sable232 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well, no problem, I'll nominate it for deletion. Fma12 (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chrysler logo14.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Fma12 (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]