User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you seemed quite knowledgeable on a recent RSN RFC that I saw, so maybe you can help me understand something. I noticed that WP:FREEBEACON is marked as generally reliable currently, but the most recent discussion about it resulted in 3 editors saying deprecate, 4 saying unreliable, and only one saying reliable. Am I missing something here? How did this result in a generally reliable designation? Edittttor (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The result is due to the 2025 RFC. If you're looking at the perennial source list the number are discussion, the dates are RFCs. In general the consensus of RFCs are what's reflected in the list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you again, but I thought that you might be interested in what i supsect is ai content, a whole article

Japanese–Meitei cultural relations - Wikipedia

Thsi one is farily new, and many of the links are dead, not working, blog posts or showing other stuff, They're also ordered in a way that I supect ai. Not sure what to do about it ~2026-33485-52 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Your best bet with something like this is the AI Noticeboard, the editors there have more experience dealing with AI content than me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't really think about registering a user so far I just thought it was popping in and edit but apparently there's chaos from my tries to improve the page. Now, the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MannaHontanna Is reverting back and adding back all the ai content etc and other content that was agreed on to be removed. It seems to be a user created today, with the exact same focus on pages as the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Assaultim#Ai_content As I said, I have very limited idea about how wiki works and don't really wish to be engaged in longer things just wanted to improve a little bit where I saw obvious errors. But this situation feels a bit strange are there any way to stop the user from restoring the air content all the time? ~2026-33106-38 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't work the way that talk page is currently working, nor the way that the article is being edited. I suggest you stop editing the article for the moment, there are rules about edit warring and you could get yourself in trouble (see WP:3RR). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-33324-56 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree. I'll just let it be for the moment, letting other Members in. if I feel I have energy or interest to edit in the future maybe I'll get an account. For the moment I have been waiting through my computer and phone. I'll just let it be and let others give their opinions. It's exhausting for me too. Maybe I have energy in some weeks or months ~2026-33324-56 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just think that I wouldn't be super active if I get an account, actually the reason for my involvement was firstly not the ai content, I just really dislike things without sources and sources that says something completely different from the wiki text (which unfortunately is more common with ai created content). I've noticed that on an array of different articles (not just on diaspora articles) for example about history, culture, or lists etc, just haven't cared about editing before. I read Wikipedia quite often, (as most people, so guess) but now I realize how difficult it is. I thought it was as easy as pop in and taking away obviously wrong content, but appearantly not. Anyway, I apologize if I caused any inconveniences. And as you said on the talk pages. Will cool down, stay away and then look at it fresh later and let others members figure something out and give evaluations too. ~2026-33324-56 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I edited for a long time before making an account, but making an account does have it's benefits. I think you've been unfortunate as the article you edited has had a lot of disruption in the past, and you've just stepped into it. I found doing little things at first helped when I started, there's lots of things that take time to learn beyond just simple editing.
If you come across unsourced content best practice is to try and find sources for it, and then either tag it with {{citation needed}}. Only removing it if the content is problematic or just wrong (no source could ever be found for it). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Right. How long should the unsourced content tag sit or there's no hard rule? It's not uncommon to see the tag on kinda controversial topics and biographies of people. So if no source could be find then okay to remove quickly or should it still be discussed on the talk pages first? Or if it's obviously off topic should be removed promptly or discussed on talk pages or is it from case to case? ~2026-33324-56 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Anything controversial and unsourced in an article about a living person should be removed immediately, see WP:BLPREMOVE. For everything else there no hard rule, the less important or controversial it is the longer you should give it. Anyone restoring unsourced content has to provide a source when they do so, see WP:BURDEN.
In general if you get push back about an edit you made then discussion is always the key. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, be bold in your editing but also listen to the concerns of other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I noticed you had quite a few edit war warnings, but you chose to remove them from your profile here

bad faith removal imo ~2026-34448-32 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) First, please take note of WP:AGF. And second, editors can remove notices from their own talk page at any time, with very few exceptions (such as declined unblock requests). There is nothing bad faith about removing content from your own talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had a couple of bad faith edit warring notices, as I've picked up a couple of troll followers over the years. Everything

is still there in the page edit history, and I'm happy to answer any questions about any specific post. As to removals any editor can maintain there user talk page as they wish, except for a very few specific points, see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)