User talk:BassiStone

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Mouna Traoré, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See MOS:OVERLINK. Normally we do not link names of countries or other commonly-understood words. CodeTalker (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for the guidance, I just figured how to do hyperlinks and was practicing. I’m taking it slow and hope to become a helful editor over time. 2A00:1598:C72B:BF00:B5FD:4ACF:23F8:F10C (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 22:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Many of your edits just today have introduced grammatical errors, introduced language which goes against MOS:EUPHEMISM, or otherwise were not clear improvements.

Many older edits also exhibit the same problems, please carefully consider if an edit is grammatically accurate or a genuine improvement before implementing it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the correction, reading the complied edits since I started is revealing just how much I need to rethink my approach to learning this. I thought that if I just looked for small things to make a little better in the beginning it wouldn’t hurt if I made errors. I see now that grammatical details perhaps aren’t the best things for me to look for.

Perhaps focus on something ells like adding sources and links? I’m just not ready for making any big changes to Wikipedia but I’d like to keep learning. 2A00:1598:C72B:BF00:9C27:67A8:A219:95FE (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding sources and links would also be helpful, for adding references WP:CITE has information about how to go about that, and for adding internal links just be careful not to MOS:overlink. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your warning here, but to clarify: saying things like "an amazing 150 million records" , or trying to, as your edit summary puts it, "add color" to prose is considered WP:PUFFERY and isn't the kind of formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

That's right; we don't need to add editorial commentary onto such things. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/fifteen_thousand_two_hundred_twenty_four: We shall assume good intentions in order to keep a good atmosphere for all us volunteers just trying to help out. That is also a Wikipedia rule. No, no puffery or any other negative characterisation is nessicary here. BassiStone (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding, that type of effusive language ("adding color") is called puffery by the manual of style, its not a personal assessment I made in an attempt to disparage your contributions. I believe your intentions are good! But even good intentions can run afoul of the manual of style. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to keep pushing for the correction of my work because I conceded the point immediately. Tone matters, please take care to make sure that you're communications with other editors are as pleasant as possible. Thank you. It means a lot. BassiStone (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SNUGGUMS Thank you for correcting me in such a kind and polite way, it makes me feel respected and appreciated which means a lot when you volunteer your time for a good cause. Point taken and I will keep it in mind going forward. I don't understand why some feel a need to add a harsh tone as if I'm doing something in bad faith. BassiStone (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have corrected for the second time a sentence that you modified in a grammatically incorrect way. “While Russian and German folk traditions have been suggested…” is a dependent clause (it needs a main clause to complete the thought). Ending the sentence there makes it incomplete. I kindly ask you not to modify it incorrectly again. In addition, if you need more time for insertions, you can work in your own personal sandbox and, once your work is complete, copy the final version into a public page. This way you will also avoid making continuous changes and overlapping with other users. Thank you. TheFairyTaleLover (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Helllo TheFairyTaleLover|TheFairyTaleLover I don't have strong feelings on this so I concede to your preferences. Didn't mean to change your stuff twice, I was going over the text so many times over the last couple of days as I been wanting to really elevate the Swan Lake article. Have a great weekend BassiStone (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I am also trying to expand this article (I’m not an expert in music or ballet, even though they fascinate me, but I’m interested in the conception of the work and in the evolution of the story, both in the libretto and in its adaptations). Have a good day. TheFairyTaleLover (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

331dot (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have removed your extended confirmed status, as it appears to me that you were deliberately spreading out your edits in order to pad your edit count to get to 500- once you did(with a little margin for error) you made an edit about Israel. You may apply for extended confirmed status via WP:PERM. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

User:331dot I respectfully contest the fairness of the critique for several reasons:

First, I added a source from Britannica to a pre-existing, approved text in the Israel article, which should not be considered contentious. Second, my editorial history demonstrates prior engagement with Israel-related topics, indicating no avoidance during my early contributions. Third, the specific edit in question lacks any evident issues unless you provide concrete evidence otherwise. Lastly, in accordance with Wikipedia's core principle of assuming good faith, the current treatment I am receiving appears misaligned with this foundational rule.

I welcome a reasoned discussion on these points for clarity and fairness.

BassiStone BassiStone (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't remove your edit to Israel, though it was about the Golan Heights- a territory integral to the Arab-Israeli conflict(as Israel sees the Golan as its territory while Arab countries view the Israeli presence there as an occupation).

Yesterday, you made 25 edits within the span of a half hour(a rapid pace) which was enough to put you over 500 and grant yourself extended-confirmed status to be able to make that edit to the Israel article. It's not the first time you've made a rapid series of edits that could have been accomplished with a single edit. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot The edit under scrutiny, the addition of source www.britannica.com/summary/Golan-Heights, is either a valid contribution or it is not. If it is accepted and remains on the page, then why am I being penalized for adding what is ostensibly a correct and appropriate source?

Regarding the timing of my edits, I made 25 contributions quickly yesterday; however, I had already surpassed the 500-edit threshold the day before. This demonstrates that I did not rush to hit the milestone on the same day as the disputed edit. Furthermore, those 25 edits primarily involved adding sources to the Swan Lake article. I intentionally add sources one at a time because earlier attempts to add multiple sources simultaneously led to formatting errors and necessitated redoing the work. A review of my edit history reveals my effort to master proper source insertion, particularly the transition to using visual editing to avoid such mistakes.

This contextual information is essential to fairly assess the intent and quality of my contributions.

The total time I took to reach 500 edits exceeds four months. Is that duration indicative of behavior intended to game the system? Given this extended timeframe, it seems inconsistent to characterize my editing pace as rushed or manipulative. I invite clarification on what standards are being applied to assess such milestones within the community. BassiStone (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you appreciate how clever some people are in gaming the system to be able to edit about Israel directly. However, since you have given a clear explanation for your editing pattern, I will restore your EC status with my apologies. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I admire the seriousness with which you approach your responsibilities as an administrator. I also recognize the inherent difficulty in distinguishing between bad actors and well-intentioned volunteers, especially when neither group is exempt from occasional errors. This complexity underscores the challenge you face in maintaining fairness while upholding Wikipedia’s standards.

I appreciate you taking the time to hear my concerns, and I want to especially acknowledge and thank you for the swift resolution of this matter. Your prompt attention to the issue is both noted and valued. BassiStone (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Just some parting advice- please write your comments yourself without using an AI(100% certain your last comment was AI written per zeroGPT). Most of us here prefer to talk one human to another and don't want to talk to computer algorithms. Please see WP:LLM for the pitfalls of using AI here. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I consider that a compliment thank you very much. I confess to that without programs correcting my constant language errors I would seem far less sophisticated, but I am a human and I choose what I want to write. I will read the pitfalls of using AI here in case there are applications in language correction that I need to be more aware off. Thank you again. BassiStone (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

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

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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) 20:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not make any more inappropriate page moves. That made quite a mess and people had to clear it up. Even worse, the titles you chose were unacceptably POV. DanielRigal (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

DanielRigal, This conversation is appropriate to have on the articles talk-page, where you may read what I wrote about the title change before I did it, please look at talk-pages and avoid assuming bad intentions. I will respond to you there. BassiStone (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Please be sure you understand WP:USERTALK guidelines. You should not be repeatedly re-adding comments on a user's talk page, as you have here. Editors are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. You're not allowed to repeatedly re-add it. If you need to show that you talked to an editor for some sort of formal report, then you can link to the comment in the WP:PAGEHISTORY.

Warnings aside - a bit of advice. I'd recommend slowing down a bit. It can take a while to understand how Wikipedia works. It feels like you're throwing around a lot of heated, misguided accusations, and have already accumulated more warnings on your talk page than is usual for an editor with edit only in the hundreds. I'd recommend worrying less about others, and more about making sure you fully understand the rules for yourself. That's advice though, not a warning. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the advice and I take it to heart, I am feeling frustrated with being what I perceive to be bullied by two editors gaming up on me. Is it really supposed to be this harsh treatment of fellow editors?

Granted I have been corrected in how I edit which I welcome, I take it and apply it. I have a history of thanking anyone who corrects me. However, These accusations on AI are ridicules, it is like asking me when I stopped beating my wife. I can't prove or disprove the allegations and they are not offering evidence. I know I am not using AI to create text, I use it in searching for sources, to analyse large pieces of text and to give me advice in grammar as English is not my first language. BassiStone (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it can be tough. I certainly hate it when an article I've worked on our created ends up getting deleted, for example. Same with discussions not going your way. It's not fun. But it is the way it goes sometimes. I personally wouldn't describe their actions as "bullying", but yes, discussions can absolutely be "straight to the point" and even "harsh" at times. But generally, if people fall within our no personal attacks and civility rules, its generally not seen as an issue. Try not to take it personally - much of the time, its just people having frank, honest discussions on how they feel on a topic.

That said, it'd probably be good to know that Wikipedia is probably one of the least AI-friendly places in existence. While WP:AI and WP:LLM don't expressly forbid their use, culturally speaking, there's a very strong bias against it. I'd recommend not using it as much as possible, or it'll keep being a point of arguments as you edit Wikipedia. (I'm not accusing you of using AI, but, I can see how editors would see your writing style as being AI written. There's definitely parallels.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I hear you, I guess when it is the same editor who does it a few times it feels extra bad and I may have misunderstood it as bullying when that same person calls in friends. I hope he has good intentions, I just don't see any of it in his responses as it is always completely without any politeness or the slightest kind tone. Maybe living in Sweden makes me extra attentive to perceived rudeness as Swedish culture has very high demands on politeness and niceties. You're right in that I don't have to read too much into it, he could be in the Netherlands or South Africa where niceties are considered less, and bluntness is celebrated.

I will avoid these editors and focus on my work, if they cross my path again I will take it with a pinch of salt, and if it gets too much I won't complain to them but go straight to an admin. I was recommended to first try to solve it with the editors but it may be better to avoid and just go for the formal process if it is needed so I won't get into arguments.

Thank you so much for your advice on process, coexisting, and AI. Very helpful. BassiStone (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

, Ethan Zuckerman muses on the differences between his WP-article and an AI-written article about him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

If I wish knew the best solution to Ai and humans, when I became a member of Wikipedia the policy was as difficult to judge as it is now. I figured if I just follow rules I will be fine, but then the mere fact that I use some AI as a tool for what is allowed it is assumed that then I must do everything that is not allowed with AI too.

If I admit I use AI in an approved way, then I am declared a liar by default. If I would deny that I use any AI would lie because it is not possible any more. Most programs contain or are connected to AI.

The edits that people are bringing up now are old and ones I re-edited myself quickly after because of the errors. Even this very message I ran through AI to check for errors, there were plenty unfortunate. My eyes and brain are not made for spelling and grammar, but I am good at other things. BassiStone (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)