User talk:Bocanegris

I reversed your recent edits on that page in which you said "As requested, incorporated new sources and quotes into the existing text without removing previous valid sources. Removed tangent about Ostertag and Sora AI (unrelated to the page's topic). Removed tangent about Ostertag and the AMTPT (unrelated to the topic, sourced from personal substack). Removed tangent about Terrace, the pandemic and budget concerns (unrelated). Removed issue tag." I don't disagree with you on the issue tag, but who requested this? There's no discussion on Talk:Disney and LGBTQ representation in animation about it nor Talk:Lee Knox Ostertag. That seemed odd.

Also, I found issue with you adding in "new sources and quotes" which didn't add much considering the page already talks about Strange World, Nimona, and Lightyear. I added some of the content you added to other pages. Also, the links you added from CNBC, The Guardian, The Hollywood Reporter, and Reuters do not exist. Furthermore, the Business Insider piece is already mentioned there as were other sources, plus you removed a link from the section on Terrace (which then makes that entire paragraph unsourced).

Did you perhaps use A.I., like Gemini here, as you admitted you use in an above discussion on this page? Because your edits there are a total mess to be completely frank. Please do NOT add hallucinated sources and make edits which are unhelpful. Thanks Historyday01 (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those issues. I rewrote it and personally double-checked the current sources. As for your question, you can see in the article history

> Okay, I'm not saying the new sources are bad, but not all the sources you removed are invalid. A vast majority of them are reliable. Can you please incorporate the previous text and your new text together? Thanks.

At least I interpreted that as a request. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion; I'm still learning the correct communication channels for issues like these.

As for the tangents, I will edit them out separately so any problems with the added info don't get tangled up with that. Bocanegris (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This most recent edit adds two unsuitable user generated sources. Wikipedia's rules can be unclear for newcomers, but I have a couple tips. First go through the Introduction for a quick policy and guideline overview, then afterwards reading the following core ones in full: WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually never made it through the introduction page but I'll make sure to read it before I do any more major edits. Bocanegris (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Bocanegris, your edits on Bienvenido al Sueño are also OR. If the source does not support the claim, do not make the claim. CMD (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Superman: Birthright, you may be blocked from editing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Multiple issues were pointed out concerning this specific edit , so no, the sources do not check out , and it is clear that you have not properly engaged with the sources at all. Stop editing with an LLM, stop restoring reverted problematic LLM content. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

There's more WP:V and WP:OR issues in this edit to Mini Ninjas.

Regardless of the tools used, adding unverifiable information and original research to the encyclopedia is disruptive, and continuing to do so after being explicitly warned not to is highly likely to lead to a block. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. This user used hallucinated sources on other pages too as I challenged them above (since my post above on Jan. 20th). It was... a pain to deal with. Historyday01 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Bocanegris. Your edit here at Polo Polo appears to have added peacock language and original research -- all without reference to any sources. Then you removed the "more-citations-needed" tag without actually adding any. I have removed some of the more obvious promotional language and restored the citation needed tagging. I note that your added text appears to be the unsourced promotional style that occurs with AI writing. Can you please explain your reasoning for the added text without any referencing? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for reaching out and for your work on the [[Polo Polo]] article. I appreciate you taking the time to review my edits.

I'm actually excited to dive deeper into the community's standards. I see now that my writing style might have come across as a bit too AI or promotional (what you called peacock language) and I apologize for any confusion regarding the sources. I'm still refining my workflow and I clearly got a bit ahead of myself by removing the citations needed tag... maybe?

The added text is not unsourced, but it comes from the artist's official page, so I guess that's the problem. I'm actually culturally attached to the article, so I know what's relevant and what's not. It's a valid point though (I mean, I know the rules). My opinion is that maybe you should talk with me before undoing what I wrote? Let's undo that change and have a conversation about how to continue.. Bocanegris (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Please note that his "artist's official page" is self-serving and promotional -- as is typical of any fan site. It is mostly invalid as a reference. Bocanegris, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of proper sourcing. Just because something is written online or elsewhere does not make it a valid source; this is especially true for self-published sources likes blogs or personal webpages or self-published books.

Furthermore, much of the text that you've added doesn't appear in that source. Such as: "...a family dedicated to the shoe industry," "The popularity of Polo Polo gradually increased," "...among other massive events," "...became a public favorite..." and "...the prime example of a successful career...." Words like massive and prime example of a successful career are puffery. All of this text actually appears to be you own interpretation of this person's career. That violates Wikipedia policy against original research.

I'm not sure what you are trying to express by your explanation, "I'm actually culturally attached to the article, so I know what's relevant and what's not." Perhaps you want to explain what you mean further. But first I suggest that you please read and understand Wikipedia:Independent sources -- it can help explain to a foundation of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability -- and help you see where your editing is running afoul of Wikipedia guidelines. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

In udertstand, you're right. I'm going to read the page you recommended before making any more changes to the article. Thank you! Bocanegris (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit contains non-matching ISBNs and hallucinated information and quotes. This is your final warning, stop using an LLM to make edits like this. If you do so again I will open an ANI report myself, this has historically resulted in blocks for similar behavior. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to work using the tools that I choose, man. If in future edits you find any errors, just report them, you don't need to warn me. If I get blocked, I'll open another account. You can't stop what's happening. Bocanegris (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest not following me to try and make a point as done in this edit with a summary of Added sources. All valid ISBNs, which appears to be a response to my revert here which stated that the reverted text contained ... non-matching ISBNs .... fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't the case at all. Every ISBN was correct, and I only pointed that out precisely because it's a mistake I've made in the past. I made a valid contribution and frankly don't understand why you'd suggest I stop making positive improvements to articles.

If I break any rules or violate the code of conduct, please file a formal report. At this point there's no need to send final warnings or personal suggestions directly to me.

Thank you. Bocanegris (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The recent edits you added to the "Disney and LGBTQ representation in animation" were rewritten and moved to the appropriate section. After reading what you added, it was clear your text violated WP:NPOV as it did not present the subject in a way that would help readers and in a neutral way. Please keep that in mind with any future edits. I remain concerned, considering other edits as noted on this page, that you may have used an LLM in your edit. I really do not want to keep having to do cleanup after your badly done, sloppy edits. It is tiring. Historyday01 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, thank you. However, you didn't explain your rationale so I'm not sure how it violated the NPOV or how could I learn from this.

As I said before, lately I've been using LLMs to fix my grammar (not my first language) but other than that, no. I wrote that text.

"I really do not want to keep having to do cleanup after your badly done, sloppy edits. It is tiring."

I think this is uncalled for. Even if my edits are not of the highest quality yet, I don't think that language is appropriate (baddly done, sloppy) and I take it as an attack. If you are tired of fixing errors from new editors, maybe you should take a break from Wikpiedia.

I'll let it slide this time, but please be respectful from now on or I will be forced to submit a complain in the ANI. Bocanegris (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, my comment was not a personal attack, but it was exhaustion at having to deal with an editor who appears to continually use LLMs for editing. Historyday01 (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Just be careful with your language and tone next time, even if frustrated. Thank you for clarifying. Bocanegris (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have opposed a ban on you for now, I don't know what the result will be but you have to be willing to take onboard concerns and criticism from experienced editors in good faith without responding in a confrontational way. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I guess I also got exhausted because literally 99% percent of communications from editors has been negative and sometimes hostile. Except for a single nice comment from my on boarding mentor, and a single "Thanks" notification from a random user, this has been all been an uphill battle of criticism and accusations.

I will drop the confrontational tone. Thank you for pointing that out. Bocanegris (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at RoadCraft shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continued llm use by Bocanegris. CMD (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Bocanegris, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bocanegris and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Bocanegris during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Banksy. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.

Please note that WP:BLP policy is unambiguous: The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. See also the sections WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPRESTORE. Generalrelative (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)