User talk:Belbury

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for the help defending the page Dead Internet Theory from people changing the lede without citations, among other things. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	The Barnstar of Diplomacy is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. You did so! Thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Mark Dolan

Hi Belbury,

The quote I added to Mark Dolan’s page was from Dolan’s own verified Twitter account, and that quote is being reported on GB News and the Twitter accounts of many of Dolan’s colleagues.

So yes I’m afraid you have made a mistake as I directly quoted Dolan’s own published statement - I didn’t quote a third party making a claim on Social Media.

GB News is actually displaying his tweet as they report it, as they are also aware it’s Dolan’s account.

I should be annoyed at wasting my time, but instrax find it highly amusing. 😂 AllSeeingOracle (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@AllSeeingOracle: Hi, are you the same user as User:Boxinghris, then?

WP:TWEET is that you can't use someone's tweet as a source for a claim they're making about a third party, that's all, and it's what you were doing in this edit. I'm not taking any view on whether something is true, just how Wikipedia provides sources for it. Belbury (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This feels like an A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Are you? Maybe not all the time. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I just don't understand some of the things that you're saying. Belbury (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to know how to use my ... sandbox? You told me you would help me figure it out, but I am not sure what it does. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:About the sandbox, or ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Belbury (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This was an insincere thank you, btw. Goodbye. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Still very unsure

about when to remove a picture that is unavailable on most DNS servers for the World Wide Web. Are we an archival website? peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, you can ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk if you have general, sincere questions about how Wikipedia works. Belbury (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the jabbing response. I will try the Teahouse again. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You made a great disciple, Belbury.

HouseBlaster will take it from here, I guess. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Belbury (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Me neither. C ya! peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I was being ironic, with this entire post. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Florence

It is referenced, and doesn't look like AI to me. But it does look like a copyvio from the cited guidebook. Cheers. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnbod: It looked suspicious to me, and enough so for another user to give them the same warning. The Here is a detailed history of boldface bulleted list format is very much the kind of thing you get back if you ask an LLM to write about a topic, and all of the user's additions on diverse topics (added within minutes of each other) had the same kind of intro and structure and conclusion, so I doubt anything is being copied from guidebooks.

I don't think the citation meant anything, either. All of the user's additions ended with a single <ref name=":0"> or <ref name=":auto1"> or similar at the very end of the text, just duplicating the first named reference in the article. I guess either they or the LLM thought it would look like a more plausible edit if they did that. Belbury (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding Refrences Draft:Adaptations In Ecological Management: Biology

Hey Belbury, please could you edit my DFC : Draft:Adaptations In Ecological Management: Biology. It needs to be added refrences, please could you help me, am not good in adding refrences to an article.

:Also bear in mind that "am still editing"

—Raph Williams65 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Raph Williams65: Afraid it looks like that draft has been deleted overnight as a copyright violation. Belbury (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Why am I a sock puppet?

Why are you investigating me? What did I do to be associated with this rapist Oats and Cream?? I am so sorry you feel a need to remove me based on a circumstantial allegation of sexual assault. CheeseLactose (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@CheeseLactose: Hi there, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oatsandcream to see the concerns I have. I don't know what sexual assault allegation you're talking about. Belbury (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand those concerns, but I never heard of "Death In Paradise" or "Curse of Oak Island". I agree you may be concerned that I am impacting 2025 article, and I will stop that. Thank you. But I can also see this Gen Beta is never going to be created all because of this scoundrel sockpuppet. CheeseLactose (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Belbury, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Working on My AFC

@Belbury could you work on My AFC, i need your help in refrencing. —Raph Williams65 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Raph Williams65: Hi, I don't know if you're asking for help in formatting references or finding them. Try asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need help. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Question on NFL fox page

im a new editor here. I was just how I could source a a musical motif in NFL fox theme of sleigh ride (instrumental) Nick the Napoleon (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nick the Napoleon: You'll want to find a book or a documentary or a newspaper article or something that has made this observation. See WP:SOURCES. Belbury (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The reversion of someone's Elpenor edit.

Hi there, I saw that someone added "EPIC: The Musical" to Elpenor's page, and you were unfamiliar with it. It's not just one cut song like they edited, but instead is actually cut from most of the musical. This is likely the cut song that they mentioned, and then this song is another one that he is in. I don't know if that would be enough to warrant the edit, but as he's extremely popular in the community, I just thought I'd give a heads up. BBGDylan (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@BBGDylan: Hi, I just removed the paragraph because there is no Wikipedia article about Epic! The Musical, it wasn't clear what this musical actually was, and no source was given saying that Elpenor was cut from it. Everything in Wikipedia should be sourced. Belbury (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury Hi again, yeah, I understand, it's why I gave the info that the original person failed to provide, heh. So you can see that it's true and for proof to be given, and I'll probably make a basic page for it in the future, with sources needed and stuff. :) BBGDylan (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Tips on sockpuppets

If there is anything unconstrutive , revert it. If there's anything useful, don't revert it.

You're adding fire to the situation and the sock is going to constantly return to make their edit, resulting in wsasted time from sockpuppet SPIs who could easily be dealing with better things than your constant reports.

This edit on History of England could easily have been kept. They actually improved the page and added some good detail.

Happy late Xmas! Grometlovescheese (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page jaguar) In my experience, the opposite is at least equally true: if LTAs feel their contributions will be kept as long as they're "constructive", they'll keep trying to make edits. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair point but I still stand by my point. Grometlovescheese (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there are several different personalities LTAs can have. In general, we shouldn't allow contributions from editors who are not available to participate in the community, due to being banned. Remsense ‥ 论 13:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, user who joined Wikipedia ten minutes ago. Belbury (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

(Apologies for jumping on what is possibly some bait on your talk page.) Remsense ‥ 论 13:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all! Belbury (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Citation Rejected

hi @Belbury i just added one citation and that is rejected . The message shows that "they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia" ? Could you please help me ? this citation is relevant can you please read the citation content ? or guide what should i do better encyclopedia . 12pound (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@12pound: An anonymous blog entry on a commercial website is not considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia. See WP:RS for further explanation. You should be able to quote a government website or a newspaper for this kind of information. Belbury (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Can you redo your edits please on the article Generation. Because I used Google & Wikiversity. -FBIGUY81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBIGUY81 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Blay Whitby

Apologies for the editing of my page. There is indeed a clear conflict of interest but my you will see that my edits were minor and stylistic. I don't mind if you restore. I was stung into tidying it up mainly by repeated vandalism.

When the vandalism first occurred in 2018, I attributed it to a drunken student prank but it seems to still be occurring, so maybe someone or several people have a grudge against me. I'm sorry to say that I find that very upsetting.

Blay Blay Whitby (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Blay Whitby: All I see is that you added and formatted some references, which seems fine. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia's policies when editing an article about yourself. See also WP:BIOSELF, for what to do if you're concerned that something is wrong with the article. Belbury (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Chhayawad Wikipedia Page

Hi! Regarding your comment on the Chhayawad Wikipedia page about AI-generated and unsourced text, I wanted to let you know that I've added credible and reliable sources to support the statements. None of the sources are AI-generated, and any AI-generated text has been removed. With this update, I plan to respectfully remove the "AI" tag. Please take a look and, if you feel anything still needs attention, feel free to leave a message on the talk page. Best regards, Vyom.Y (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2009

I see you tagging articles, and I wonder if you can see what you can do with the backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2009. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Bearian: Not sure I follow you, what do you mean? --Belbury (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a backlog of 15 years of almost 70,000 unsourced articles/stubs. The backlog has escaped many editors' attention. Many of these also have additional, even multiple, issues, but they could be tagged (for example) with expand or notability tags, which could bring them to attention to editors who are patrolling other categories. I've been looking at expanding unsourced articles from translations from other languages that I can't read (say, Cyrillic). I noticed that you have tagged other articles, and this project could be a systematic effort that you could help with. If you can't do this, or just have no interest, no problem. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Not much interest, I'm afraid, they seem inevitably niche or specialist subjects. Belbury (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Amber shift

I know this exists, but I can't find any sources. Please help to source this. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, by the way, for adding the image. That's why I'm asking you. Will also reach out to projects. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, from what I remember someone just mentioned the concept informally to me and I noticed when I looked it up on Wikipedia that it didn't have an example image, so no ideas for sources. Belbury (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed Citation and edit

Hi sorry I only noticed this after changing the edit back, the article I used as a citation quotes its sources from the UK GC where it discusses displayed RTP and Variance, as whole the article I edited is extremely messy and the section regarding perception is very vague. Gorgiasofleontini (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gorgiasofleontini: So quote the government website rather than the gambling website that's trying to get the viewer to click through and claim some "free spins"?

I've replaced the reference. It also appears to be misquoting the source, which only refers to "non-remote gaming machines". Belbury (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gorgiasofleontini (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Meeting science and ROTI

Hello, I am an expert in meeting science and ROTI and that's why I wrote the articles. Every single sentence has a valid source. In addition, the texts have been reviewed by other experts, I can guarantee that there are no hallucinations. Can you specify the sections that need to be corrected please? By the way, meeting science is about meetings in general, it is about administration (political, associative...) not only about business. Lasourisrose (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lasourisrose, you say that "the texts have been reviewed by other experts", what do you mean by this?

If meeting science is also about political meetings, you and your AI have neglected to mention this in the text. Belbury (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It means that the text has been reviewed by meeting specialists, I asked different experts in the field to cowrite it. Meeting science is the study of what happens before, during, and after meetings in the workplace. Are you saying that government offices are not a workplace? By the way, it is in the 3rd paragraph. Lasourisrose (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury Lasourisrose (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Bot to track usage of AI images in articles

Hi Belbury, regarding this, I have created VWF bot to handle this. Where do you think the reports should be updated at, somewhere in Wikipedia: namespace or the bot's user subpage? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: That's great news, thank you! A WikiProject subpage like Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/VWF bot log would seem like the best place for it.

I'm sure the bot would also be very welcome to edit Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts directly to include new gallery entries, if it was able to skip (perhaps through a public, manually-curated list of AI articles) images that were being used in an AI context. Belbury (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

BRFA filed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Belbury, the report is now being made at the subpage of AI WikiProject as requested. It runs weekly on Sundays. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: That looks great! Thank you. I'll let the WikiProject know that it's running. Belbury (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Advice, please?

This isn't really my area, but I'm concerned about recent activity on the Society of Authors and Stabbing of Salman Rushdie pages. I'm asking you because last year, my elderly father, who had been happily pootling about on Wiki for years, got involved in his first dispute with an editor on a related topic, and it really upset him. He mentioned that you had been helpful and diplomatic. I wondered if you could maybe have a look at this? I've noticed over the past couple of weeks the recent addition of "controversies" to articles about individuals and organizations within the publishing world, citing Twitter posts, primary sources and anonymous blogs to draw conclusions that don't seem neutral. But I'm still relatively new to editing, and I don't want to comment inappropriately. Any advice you can offer would be appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Belbury (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

About LGT55

Hello, just like you, I suspected that they were the same person. Even if they are not the same person, they could be meat puppets, because the articles created by LGT55 were created in a badly written way, just like Befor01. If you examine them, you will understand. Moreover, while some of LGT55's articles were moved to the draft, LGT55 refused and continued to move their articles. Without any explanation. Kajmer05 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what talk page response they give, and take further steps if necessary. Belbury (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I discovered something like this. [1] LGT55 created the article first as a draft, but then BEFOR01 appears. It seems like the things they're trying to try are the same. Kajmer05 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I understand the concern, and I want to clarify the situation. Yes, I know LGT55 as a friend, but we are not working together or coordinating our edits. Any similarities in our contributions are purely coincidental, and we have both been editing independently.

I respect Wikipedia’s guidelines and have always aimed to contribute in good faith. If there are any concerns, I am open to any review process to ensure transparency.

Let me know if you need further clarification. Thanks!

– [BEFOR01] BEFOR01 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we're not the same person. Let's discuss this on Discord. LGT55 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)