User talk:Jpgordon#Lively Toad

Hi JP, what are {{noping|Boxlarryytimmy}}'s other accounts? --Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Only one I'm sure of is {{u|Bluraptor}}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is confirmed the right tag?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If by "confirmed" you mean "checkuser makes it obvious", yeah. Bluraptor logs out at 23:01, Boxlarryytimmy is created at 23:03. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{done}} --Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

"Admins here cannot help you on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. You'll have to work it out there." Then what am I supposed to do now? I can neither edit my talk page to insert that unblock form nor contact that admin.

Tell me what to do please. I just can't stand being blocked for no reason and then having the permission to appeal revoked. Nhatquangdinh (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why are you blocked there? I don't read Vietnamese, and the automated translation of your block notice -- "Frustrated" -- is not helpful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Well I was blocked because I was mistaken as a sockpuppet. Though that admin hasn't got any evidence. Nhatquangdinh (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Now that I've provided the context, tell me what to do please. Nhatquangdinh (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I really have no idea. Maybe put your question of what to do on your talk page with {{tl|Help me}} and someone who knows will answer. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jpgordon, just came to your page through the tool to find recently active admin. I'm asking if you might, as an uninvolved editor, be able to review this AfC: Draft:Drop Site News, which is ready for mainspace but has been sitting idly for over two weeks. Thanks! إيان (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reviewing articles is not an administrative task. I'm not a new article reviewer; I don't even know what the procedure for getting an article reviewed is. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Seems it's been resolved. Thank you and sorry to bother. إيان (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Never a bother! Even if I say "I dunno!" --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Four}}

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You recently denied the unblock request of User:Zanbarg, stating that it appeared to have been written with the help of a chatbot AI. May I ask what specific indicators led you to conclude that AI assistance was used? Thank you. — ArćRèv • talk 18:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:No. There are multiple online tools to analyze text for AI assistance, but my own two decades of experience with unblock requests, AI-assisted and otherwise, is always the first indicator. I won't get specific, because WP:BEANS. Do you disagree with my analysis? It doesn't matter much in this case, since the user proceeded to WP:SOCK, but if you think I got it wrong, I'd like to know why. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:: What if an editor tries to contribute information to an article, but their difficulties with English lead them to use AI instead? Is that acceptable? — ArćRèv • talk 23:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Large language models discusses just this issue. I've got my own opinions, but I doubt they are the consensus of the community. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Using LLM, which is not officially prohibited. How do you handle reviewing unblock requests that were made by users using AI, considering they are not that good at communicating in English? AI vs. grammar checking is different, right? — ArćRèv • talk 03:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, there's a big difference between using LLM to assist in translation and allowing LLM to compose requests and responses. The most common sign of an LLM request is that it doesn't in any way address the actual issue at hand. In the case you cited, for example, there's no sign of any human involvement in the request; there's nothing indicating any understanding of why the block occurred. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I do not know if this is the appropriate spot, or whether one exists. If this is inappropriate please feel free to remove this text. I reverted an edit by the user on Arrest of Marcy Rheintgen (due to deadnaming) without leaving an edit summary, which I regret in hindsight. The user reverted my revert since I didn't specify a reason -- for all they knew I was just being disruptive for disruption's sake. I reverted again, but this time mentioned the manual of style entry for gender identity. After a few minutes, the user made another change to the article -- this time they weren't deadnaming anyone, they just changed "birth name" to "legal name" -- which, assuming good faith, is just them being pedantic (I don't know if there's some political baggage with "legal name," so maybe I'm missing that bit of context?). They used a descriptive edit summary that acknowledged my revert and the manual of style entry, and they said were going to abide by and respect that manual of style entry -- and they did. I just wanted to throw in my two cents here. Take care. —tony^{st (talk)} 21:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello jpgordon. Back in December 2024 you indefinitely semi-protected User talk:2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 after it was found that they had been using another IP to continue editing the page after TPA had been revoked. Isn't indefinite protection overkill, given that this is the talk page of an IP address talk page and not an indef-blocked account? Similar to how we almost never hand out indefinite blocks for IP addresses?

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2A02%3AA46A%3A194C%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64 block] on the /64 range of that IP address had expired in just a day or so after the semi-protection you placed, so I'm not sure that the protection needed to be that long. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, good catch, I must have been pretty pissed off! I've unprotected it. Thanks! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svgTemplate:Unsigned2Fix has been nominated for merging with Template:Unsigned. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)