User talk:Docmoates/Archive 3

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Spike Cohen when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe the issue has now be resolved. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for the feedback! Docmoates (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! Sorry for reverting... Normally I try to fix the issue in place, but there was so much changed, I felt the safest option was to revert to a stable state. Thanks for taking the feedback. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brad Polumbo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Polumbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hannah Cox is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Cox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

You reverted my edits, saying new entries require a citation. I completely agree that new entries require a citation. However, my edits were to existing entries.

Thanks! Richo98118 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your patrolling. I've had to decline a few as the barrier for notability in terms of A7 is lower than you might expect while G11 spam is higher. Let me know if I can help in any way. Star Mississippi 21:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I apprecate the feedback and will take that into consideration. Docmoates (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. Ahhwhereami (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding right now? You need to stay off of my page before I get Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents involved. Docmoates (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Docmoates, regarding the edit summary of Special:Diff/1328285559, please have a look at WP:BLPRESTORE. Restoring biographical content "pending discussion and consensus" is not an option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you'd like to answer the question at the bottom of Special:Permalink/1328301278, feel free to do so in response to my message here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

See my response below. Docmoates (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Docmoates (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Based on the block banner, it says "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus." This is what I advocated for on the talk page. I advocated for keeping the status quo and allowing a community consensus. Also, @ToBeFree even if you are saying I violated policy, it was in good faith and a block does not seem justified. The other user was engaged in harassment of me on my page and no action was taken against them. I made a good faith effort to ask for page protection and discuss the edit war with ANI. It seems I am being punished despite making good faith attempt to resolve the issue. This does not seem like the right thing. As for your accusations I used AI, that has no basis in reality. I said Rfc but what I was referring to was community comment on the talkpage. I took steps to resolve the issue. It is worth noting that the other party who also engaged in edit wars has not been blocked despite his harassment of me. Just so we are clear, I took the following steps in good faith:

1. I commented on the talk page with my concerns. 2. I attempted to discuss with opposing party on their talk page. 3. I asked opposing party to stay off of my page and we can go our separate ways. 4. I asked for page protection. 5. I asked for support at ANI.

To block me after taking multiple good faith steps to address concerns but not block the other user who harassed me, engaged in personal attacks, and violated the 3 revert rule. I was unaware of the policy cited by the admin as Wikipedia has so many and think this should have been a teachable moment rather than a punishment especially if we are not going to hold everyone equally accountable. Docmoates (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As discussed below ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, whether AI-generated or not (and GPTZero agrees with my view), you wrote some nonsense there, referring to a non-existent RfC and citing essays to justify a violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. You asked for an administrative evaluation of the situation and the result is "stop doing what you did". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero is not to be used as a the sole basis for an accusation. See: Wikipedia:Large language models#Identifying LLM-generated text. Also your comment is very ableist not understanding how those who are neurodivergent are constantly accused of sounding like AI. I can cite the numerous articles online if you like. But rather than take this oppertunity to make me aware of a policy I was unaware of, you blocked me, accused me of using AI, and failed to take action against the other party who harassed me and violated the 3 revert rule. You can tell me to stop doing something and educate me on policy without punishing me for not being aware. You could also take action against the person who harassed me and also violated policy. Docmoates (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree - I am curious why you are not holding both parties accountable for edit warring? Docmoates (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The other user's edits were, at least arguably enough, exempt from the policy (WP:3RRNO #7). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

How can you argue the were unsourced? It was the New York Times. Docmoates (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The exception is for "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" material and the edit summary of Special:Diff/1328283738 voiced a concern about, at least, a perceived bias. Which then needs to be discussed before the material is restored, and that requirement may be enforced with reverts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Fine, I get that part, you have made that clear and I have acknowledged I was not aware of the policy regarding the removal. My counter to this would be that if I voice a concern of bias, does that mean I can then engage in reverting over and over again? Docmoates (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

If the concern is genuine and the material is about a living person, yes. And while WP:POINT exists, as long as you don't do it for that purpose, yes you can, pointing to WP:3RRNO #7 and risking that an administrator disagrees about whether it applies in the given situation. But generally, yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the main reason why I placed a block instead of attempting further discussion is that Special:Diff/1328296140 was your response to the edit warring warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, look at the time stamps. No edit wars had happened around the time he posted that. He posted that as a response to me closing the discussion on my talk page. Look at the time stamps. It was retaliation on that users part for me ending the discussion on my talk page.

My last edit on the page was at 17:59 and he posted that at 19:01. There was no basis for posting at that point. Docmoates (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

So an hour goes by, there have been no changes to the page, and he randomly posts that after I close the discussion on my talk page at 18:32. Perhaps if you look at the time stamps you can see why I was frustrated. How are you going to add an edit war warning an hour later after various discussions? Docmoates (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope you will address the timing issue, @ToBeFree. But I am guessing you won't. I am not sure why an edit war warning would be added an hour after the last edit. I have never seen that done here. It appears the only logical reason was be cause I closed the conversation on my talk page and he was looking for a reason to post on my page again. Docmoates (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

That would indeed be an issue. Looking at the history of both of your talk pages, you both have been sending each other templated messages after the rejection of previous messages (Ahhwhereami rejected by reverting, you rejected by closing), which is unproductive and can be a form of harassment, yes. If sending each other unwanted messages is the whole extent of the harassment, I'd like to put that aspect aside for now. Two people have been fighting each other in a way each of them shouldn't have. It distracts from whether there has been an edit war in the article itself and who has been edit warring to which degree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

That is my entire point. You claim the block was based on this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1328296140 which you now admit was "unproductive and can be a form of harassment" yet you only punished one of us. You didn't take into consideration my frustration even though you admit it is harassing. It is offensive that you want to put the harassment aside. I guess harassment is okay? You sure did not address it with him despite your admissions. Docmoates (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

"Two people have been fighting each other in a way each of them shouldn't have..." Yet you only punished one of us. Docmoates (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you not see the problem with that? With letting bad behavior slide on one side? Docmoates (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Your entire basis for blocking me was my response to his tag on my talk page which you now admit was harassment. So you blocked me for being upset about him harassing me. That makes absolutely no sense. But if nothing else, I'm glad you admit that he harassed me by doing the tag and that my response to the harassment was the basis for your block. Also proving through your actions that you don't intend on holding him accountable for harassing me as you admit. Docmoates (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Harassment is not okay. If you had been the victim of one-sided harassment, I'd have reacted differently. What actually happened is that you sent each other templated messages as an unproductive part of a dispute. You're currently exaggerating this part of the dispute to create the impression of an innocent victim having been unjustly blocked. As the block is meant to prevent further edit warring in response to an edit warring noticeboard report, this is missing the main point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

If the block was truly meant to prevent further edit warning, then you would have blocked me from editing that single page. I'm just struggling with the fact today you would allow one person to harass someone else without holding them accountable. You stated that the original reason for the block was because of my response to the tag did you not say that? My response to that tag was as a result of his behavior. Docmoates (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

If unblocked, would you continue to restore the material that had been removed in Special:Diff/1328283738? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm aware of the policy now. As previously stated, I was not aware of the policy. I deeply apologize for not being aware. I have to be honest I'm really struggling because there's so many policies that it is hard to keep up with. Docmoates (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Docmoates (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for placing a block that probably was unnecessary from the beginning as discussing with you would have been sufficient. I misinterpreted your understandable response to harassment as an unwillingness to discuss this matter. Ahhwhereami needs to stay away from your talk page except for mandatory notifications and you should behave the same towards them. Placing blocks in response to the messages right now would probably help noone and prevent nothing either. I understand that the lack of a block for the same behavior is frustrating but there's not really a better option at this time, I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. I am going to stay away from the editor and that page for a while. After being unblocked, I also asked this in good faith hoping to learn tips Wikipedia:Teahouse#Advice. @User:Ahhwhereami I am truly sorry thing spiraled out of control and for any stress I caused you. I can honestly say I was not aware of the policy. I hope you both can forgive me. Docmoates (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I have now also explicitly asked them not to message you again if possible and to at very least not to send you templated warnings anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Docmoates (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring / restoration of BLP content, it's all good. No worries here from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

And that's the good ending Light (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Maung Thin (English). Although the article has a promotional tone, it does not contain blatant advertising. Especially when articles are in the draftspace, I recommend refraining from nominating articles for G11 speedy deletion unless they contain unambiguous advertising. Editors using the draftspace are much more likely to be new editors who may not fully understand Wikipedia's policies regarding tone--not to mention that learning how to successfully write in a neutral point of view is challenging! As such, I suggest practicing restrain when coming across promotional content in the draftspace as nominating a new editor's first edits for speedy deletion can be very bitey. Thank you for your understanding. Please let me know if you have any questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for the feedback. I will take it under advisement in the future, @Significa liberdade! :) Docmoates (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:NDAI 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/2025 December 21 § Wikipedia:NDAI until a consensus is reached. Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you created Sarah Hollenstein Career and Technology Center at 03:42, 13 December 2025, and then you went on to create Phil Sorrells (an article containing ~600 words) at 03:57, 13 December 2025, with just fifteen minutes between the two. In a similar vein, you created Eagle Mountain High School at 03:22, 13 December 2025, and added a whole bunch of text the next minute. I'm curious on how you managed to make these edits in such a short succession. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I am happy to explain. I use Google docs to draft so that I can use Grammarly to check my punctuation and so that I can make sure I have the markup correct. On those two days, I uploaded my articles at the end of the day (sometimes in parts). Docmoates (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, in the article Professional degree designation in the United States, you used Markdown formatting in places such as *“intends to propose a rule implementing the definition developed through negotiated rulemaking,”*. It also has a hallucinated ref tag "NASFAAChange3", which you later removed. I read your user page about your neurodivergence affecting your editing patterns, but it surely can't make you use Markdown or hallucinate references. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That is not a hallucinated ref tag. It is a ref tag that I did not include properly. See here: https://www.nasfaa.org/uploads/documents/Federal_Student_Aid_Change_OB3.pdf. Docmoates (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

NASFAA is the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. What likely happened (I don't remember as its been nearly 10 days) is that I added a reference incorrectly using markup and the when I uploaded it, the reference was broken so I removed it because I was unsure what link was the proper link. Docmoates (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Also -- Like I said, I am relatively new and still learning the wiki mark up. See my comment at 03:51 and all the examples of edit history on my talk page in the last 48 hours. I'm not sure what you are implying with this interrogation but remember to WP:AGF. Docmoates (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to think your articles are created with the assistance of an LLM tool (see WP:NEWLLM for more details). More than half of your articles are flagged as AI-generated, and several of them contained hallucinated citations, all of which you've blamed on https://www.citationmachine.net, which, as far as I can tell, can't even generate MediaWiki citations. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you or anyone else about this further. Have a nice night. Docmoates (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you have noticed by I am still learning wiki mark up. Just check out my edits on my own page, I am a hot mess, lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Docmoates&action=history Docmoates (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I believe I have addressed your concern.].