User talk:Deacon Vorbis

Why do you take directs to me when it comes to requesting redirects or editing pages? I tried to request some actual good requests, and you're just like "Nah, fuck that. That looks like vandalism or some shit." Sure I did other mistakes on things, but you keep focusing on me the most. You're not my mentor. Why are you doing this? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gregory Khachatrian: The requests I declined weren't good requests; they were juvenile, and worse than that, they were ambiguous. Redirects are there to help people find information; these weren't plausibly going to do that. If you don't like my declines, then make the damn redirects yourself, but as I said, be prepared for them being taken to WP:RFD, because if they're of the quality you've been requesting, they will get taken there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

But why are you taking directs to me the most? This is not how I wanted to start my New Year! Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what "taking directs to you" means; that's not idiomatic English. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who's focusing on me the most. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed a string of questionable redirect requests from you, so I've taken a brief look at your recent contribs, and reverted some stuff that was inappropriate, much of it on the juvenile side. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Deacon Vorbis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi.

I noticed your recent reversion of my edit for the article "Infimum and supremum" on 2026-01-20 where you disagreed that sup {...} and inf {...} are not necessarily explained in the section "Formal definition", mostly because of the presence of sup S (S as a set) in the article. However, this expression like sup S or Inf S is firstly mentioned in the section "Infima and suprema of real numbers" that is lower than the formal definition section.

I think the section describing the definition is where such expressions (sup S and Inf S) shall be mentioned first because how to express mathematical concepts should also be a part of the definition.

Thus, could you edit this article so that typical mathematical expressions for suprema and infima shall be explained in the section "Formal definition"? Or I will gladly add it again if you agree. Goodphy (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This should be on the article talk page, not mine, but I'll say that I don't think anything like what it sounds like you're suggesting should be in the article. It's clear that the two are the same thing, one with the set represented by a letter, and one with a set notated differently. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I don't fully recognize your prospective, but I will leave the article as it is now because I can't persuade you further. There would be future visiting on this article "Infimum and supremum", re-arising this suggestion, but not now. Goodphy (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Category 2 is readily understood by most students. Not a good example in the Category theory article? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: Disputes about article content belong on article talk pages, not user. I also see that you asked about this at the Teahouse, and were advised against using your own work as a source (see WP:RS), but did so anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I replied to your response on Talk:Avatar (2009 film). ~2026-96055-3 (talk) 17:58, 12 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 Not meant to be disruptive, but this is important.. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about this one? It's less bad than their usual, at least. (I've been trying not to reflexively revert every single time they touch a math article.) --JBL (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, it looks mostly reasonable...a little too reasonable, but ehh, whatever I guess. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

In the end "infinitely many points ${\displaystyle x_{1}^{*},\ldots }$" was too much for me. I feel bad wanting to run someone well-intentioned off the site but really what can you do with someone seemingly incapable of making technically correct changes :(. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I think I glossed over that a little too fast. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. At the suggestion of some friends I started reading Discworld last year and recently made it to Small Gods; that was fun. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Good book! (of course) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Deacon,

You deleted all my comments about the AI Swarm Paper. I just wanted to clarify, that these were requests to add this publication to the article about

- disinformation - Astroturfing

Which is in my opinion super fair. This is a landmark paper in Science bringing together Nobel Prize winners and elite researchers, policy makers.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz1697

Please verify.

I read that as an author, I should not edit the article directly but suggest an edit in the discussion. This is what I have done.

Could you please help me to fix that or tell me how I am supposed to trigger or make editors aware?

I am no LLM https://danielthiloschroeder.org/

Have a nice day, Daniel Thil Schroeder Oxid911 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

PS: This is no spam. I am real, and the paper is real. Please check, it also makes sense in all articles I have suggested.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz1697 Oxid911 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

here is the authors version https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06299 without paywall Oxid911 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Oxid911: You might be real, but your edit requests were very very clearly not human-written (kind of ironic, no?). And on a side note, no paper from a month ago is a "landmark" paper; landmark papers are only found to be so with plenty of historical perspective. The fact that you're claiming it is should immediately set off alarm bells of self-promotion. That all being said, you should read WP:COI, which offers guidance on how to proceed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I read those. This is why I've used the discussion section and added a big "disclaimer", clarifying that I am one of the authors. I was hoping to discuss potential edits with the community. I have done the same with the German version of the article and got a very positive response.

Regarding the "landmark paper". I would like to change that to "High Impact." https://science.altmetric.com/details/177952978#score

I would kindly ask you to help me find the appropriate format to initiate a discussion. Again, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this paper and its content in particular with the community/authors. Oxid911 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Even now, it feels like I'm talking to a computer with the wild change in writing style from your previous messages to this one. My main pieces of advice are: 1) DO NOT use any machine assistance in writing anything here; that goes for both talk page messages and article content. 2) Read WP:COI and follow the advice there...and I mean really read it; you said you did, but your edit requests look like they were copy pasted from chatgpt rather than having understood the guidance and then following instructions. 3) Don't hold your breath. Wikipedia takes an overall dim view of people trying to promote their own research here. Your request will likely take a long time to get to, and I there's a good chance it won't be accepted, especially when trying to stick it into as many articles as possible. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks that was helpful. I Will read again propose a discussion for one of the articles. ~2026-11078-53 (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I have read the page again. Disclosed on my personal page, used the COI template, and suggested the edit only to the Disinformation article alone. Furthermore, I wrote everything myself and used only Grammarly to correct my language (I am not a native speaker).

The request is here Talk:Disinformation. I would be happy about a discussion and I have time.

Thanks for everything. Oxid911 (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for reviewing the edit of the Encounters Film Fest page. I did use an AI assistant to help me write the edit because I don't have experience writing articles for Wikipedia. It seemed like a good way to contribute something useful.

I'm the Executive Director of Encounters Film Festival (I've already declared my conflict of interest on my talk page)and I was trying to address the citation notice that has been sitting on the article since 2013. After more than a decade with no one else stepping in, it seemed like a necessary thing to do and as the person running the festival, I'm probably best placed to know which sources are accurate and reliable. For example, the festivla has not been called "Encounters Short Film and Animation Festival" for at least a decade, but that remains the title of the article.

I understand if the edit needs to come down, and I'm probably not in a position to rewrite it myself since I thought the edit was pretty good as it was! The sources I was pointing to might at least be useful to someone who wants to have a better go at improving the article.

Thanks for any help and guidance you can offer. DaveTaylorMatthews (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Deacon Vorbis. Thank you for the note. I am a COI editor (disclosed) and I used an AI tool specifically to help me with the Wikipedia citation templates (like {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)), as my last request that is outstanding, was not implemented for now due to formatting errors. I have verified every factual statement against the provided sources (Who's Who, Crockford's, and University profiles) to ensure there are no hallucinations or fictitious citations as well as just updating them from the current page's sources. How would you suggest I best present these objective career updates so they meet community standards? You can see the last talk page edit where it was the same infor from February. Many thanks. GPercyDM (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Write in your own words, and follow the instructions at WP:COI. Do not use any machine assistance, period (like you still seem to be doing now). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

your recent close of the WP:AFC/R request for the Kennedy clan member said what I have been wanting to say for so long! You rock! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

lmao finding angry mustache man on WP:DAFT was not expected SandSerpentHiss (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

4959204th User (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't...if you want to make a redirect, but are unable due to technical restrictions, you can request it at WP:AFCRD. However, I've removed the section from the target because everything there was just sourced to git repositories, rather than being mentioned in independent, reliable, secondary sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Deacon Vorbis.

I noticed your reversion (on 2026-March-15) of my recent edits for the article "Uniform convergence", without saying any reason. Could you tell why?

I'm expecting a sufficient comment if someone reverts an edit made other people. Goodphy (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Your edit was not even wrong, and "huh?" was about all I could muster as a reason. I warned you about these sorts of edits to math articles already. Consider this a final warning. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Deacon Vorbis.

Really bad explanation of your behavior. I don't like somebody reverted other's edits without specifying the detailed reason. "Huh"? That's simple?

How many warnings will you make is your call. However, I don't agree with your behavior that makes my effort meaningless. I will not "revert" your reversion at this moment, but next time, I will do if you do not provide a good reason.

This is a not a final warning. Goodphy (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

so I finally get your username!! this book is fantastic, wish I'd picked it up sooner. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

–Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Deacon.

Thank you for your message and your alert.

About the AI flag on my Internet Radio edit request?

I'll be honest, I’m a new (older) user and I struggled with the Wikipedia templates and markup stuff, a bit over my head to be honest.

I use Notebook LM to archive and interact with my research (it's handy for finding stuff and hunting down cross-references adn stuff like that) so, yes I used an LLM to help me get the request edit in a format so it looked right and make sure I didn't send a bunch of confusing references and make my edit clear and easy to read... That was my mistake!

I was trying too hard to get it right and look correct and easy to understand - I obviously took it too far with the formatting and made a mess of things.

However, please don't think it is generated. I wrote the text and the content itself is 100% human research - I've been at this for months. I am a former journalist and I have the physical archives for the 1996-2024 Scottish internet findings sitting in my PC. The NLS (National Library of Scotland) moving image records and the Scotsman/Grampian TV details are all correct and real etc, all verified and correct history.

I’m just trying to make sure the UK's first licensed internet-only station (Highlander Internet Radio and it's founder) is actually recorded in the history section and not forgotten about.

Can you help me figure out how to post this so it doesn't get flagged? I am happy to provide you with my research scans, downloads from archives or the live links or captures of video from VHS or even rewrite it in plain text the way an edit obviously should be made.

I just want the facts to stay. Any help you can give and new learner with how to do this without screwing it all up would be great.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me - HighlandWriter. HighlandWriter (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Deacon Vorbis, I hope you are well. I posted a response to your feedback on my Talk Page on 17 March regarding the proposed article expansion for Ming Yang Smart Energy. I wanted to check whether you had a chance to see it, and whether you have any guidance on how I should proceed - for example, whether breaking the proposal into smaller edit requests via the Edit Request Wizard would be more appropriate. I am happy to adapt my approach. Thank you for your time.

~~~~ LauraLunes (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I replied to your response to the latest edit request on Talk:Ape. ~2026-22434-99 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

For me, he is simply the best writer of my lifetime, and I didn't discover him till 1999.

Oddly, Small Gods was not high on my list of Pterry favourites.

That's all!! A rather pointless talk page entry, but something I wanted to say for quite some time Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 14:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I never did finish the whole Discworld series; hopefully I'll get back to it one day. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Deacon Vorbis, you reverted my edit request at Talk:BricsCAD earlier. I'm a disclosed paid editor (disclosure on my user page) and I tried to follow the WP:PAID process by not editing the article directly.

I take the "LLM slop" feedback — I did use AI help to format the request and I do not want to write like a marketer for promotion but to update the facts on our page. Can you tell me what specifically was wrong so I can fix it? Was it the template, the length, the tone, or the scope? Happy to submit something shorter and in my own words.

Thanks for your time.

Ahsan Khan Niazi Ahsan Khan Niazi (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk page lurker here. You asked what specifically was wrong - The answer is your use of an LLM here, we don't like talking to robots - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 08:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The LLM were not used to write the content, it was just to structure them. can you guide me how can post these important updates without getting such flag, the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BricsCAD requires update and there is a lot of outdated information on it. ~2026-28309-23 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

"can you guide me how can post these important updates without getting such flag," ....

Of course I can..... Dont use an LLM. This is not difficult to understand. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 13:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed my previous edits to your point, whats next? who will check/edit approve the changes? Ahsan Khan Niazi (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Whoever usually does it. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 10:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

To add to that, make sure to read the instructions at WP:COI for how to request edits, but keep in mind, like all edit requests, they need to be precise enough to actually act on, rather than general pleas for improvement. And while I personally tend to patrol the normal edit request queue, I don't look at the COI queue, which is very backlogged and can take quite some time to get answered. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 4 § Unmentioned Aboriginal Australian place names until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Moort-ak Waading / Wellington Square, Perth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 11 § Moort-ak Waading / Wellington Square, Perth until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I responded to your reply on Talk:Jim Crow laws. ~2026-30902-61 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I have already replied on my talk page, but I am unsure of the best way to communicate about this issue. Please feel free to reply on either thread. It is the same message. I'm just unsure of the procedure.

I have violated no Wikipedia policies; my contributions are unbiased, properly sourced, and well-reasoned. It is a misapplication of notability guidelines to suggest a subject requires an independent page to be listed on a main article. My editing history on this page demonstrates consistent good faith. Beyond this specific topic, I have actively improved the article by accurately updating population data and thoroughly sourcing the co-curricular robotics program. It is highly objectionable to label me the instigator of this dispute when there is clear evidence of another user utilizing alt accounts to perpetuate an edit war. As a trusted administrator, I expect a logic-based explanation for your reversion. Thus far, you have acted unilaterally with minimal comment, bypassing any opportunity to build consensus among editors. If I am genuinely mistaken in my additions, I will sincerely apologize, but I respectfully ask that you provide a reasoned argument rather than a blanket reversion. Mynameisfakeisthatok (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Mynameisfakeisthatok, Deacon Vorbis is not an administrator. I am the adminstrator who pageblocked you from a single article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Deacon Vorbis,

Thank you for the message. I want to be fully honest with you.

I am Glen Kalem-Habib, founder of the Kahlil Gibran Collective (kahlilgibran.com) and (theprophet.org) The underlying facts and sources in my newly added edits are absolutely genuine drawn from our own, and my colleagues published research and sources, but yes, the formatting was AI-assisted, which I now understand is not acceptable. I am more than willing for you to fact checked me on anything I have added.

I used an AI assistant to help draft and format genuine sources. For years I have seen mis-information on wiki about this subject I have studied for well over 29 years - With little to no experience in ‘editing’ wiki pages, it was genuinely frustrating to navigate. I found AI was a wonderful tool to finally streamline the step-by-step process- and I cannot tell you how wonderful it was to be finally able to add input into a subject I feel strongly about.

I was not aware this was prohibited on Wikipedia and I should have read the policy more carefully before editing. I apologise unreservedly.

I am happy to rewrite any edits entirely in my own words, using the same sources, and articles directly. I would welcome your guidance on the best way to proceed. I have declared my COI on my user page.

Thank you for your patience with a new editor. — Glen Kalem-Habib (talk) Glen Kalem-Habib (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)