User talk:LordCollaboration

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LordDiscord's gaming of the extended confirmed permission. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi LordDiscord, the consensus in the discussion is that you were not permission gaming. I apologize to you for filing the report accusing you of permission gaming, and thank you for your typo corrections. In light of the consensus here, I think the discussion WP:ANI § Jensenjan and WP:XC WP:GAMING needs to be re-examined and I am going to support their re-application for extended confirmed status. — Newslinger talk 20:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate this. And thank you for your (vastly more) contributions to Wikipedia too! Can't even imagine getting past 65,000 edits :) LordDiscord (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for accepting my apology. Frankly, I am appalled that I have misjudged the situation to this extent. If you are able to properly interpret policy under pressure, as you have done here, I think your future on Wikipedia looks very promising, whether you participate in contentious topics, policy-related discussions, or a calmer topic area. I hope this incident doesn't dissuade you from editing, and I wish you the best. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Knock this off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

And this. You've been around long enough to know better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to make a comment at RFA in support of their candidacy? LordDiscord (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't be encouraging or offering to nominate RFAs that are plainly going to fail, and compounding the trolling by attacking editors who are trying to save them from getting their teeth kicked in at RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not attacking any editors. As I said in the other thread, if people are uncivil at RFA, then isn’t the solution to stop that? Not discourage qualified editors from running? LordDiscord (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't that people are uncivil. The problem is that having 200-300 people turn up to say "Thanks for volunteering, but this is why I don't think you should be an admin" is horrible and demotivating, even if written in perfectly polite English. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop your trolling or it is possible you get blocked for disruptive behavior. dbeef [talk] 15:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Your unfunny attempt at being funny is going to drive away a confused, potentially good-faith editor. If someone is clearly struggling to understand their mistakes, you don't confuse them more and push them toward the (second) hell — DVRTed (Talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Per consensus I have asked for them to withdraw. LordDiscord (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, LordDiscord,

I don't believe you are trolling, I believe you are well-intentioned but you lack experience to understand what an ordeal an RFA is. For mine, I had 2 years of experience, tens of thousands of edits and it was still brutal. There have been efforts to reform RFAs so that they aren't so horrible but they are still a field for every editor to analyze and scrutinize every single mistake an editor has made, bring them up and suggest that not only should they not be an admin, they should resign from the project. They are far from civil.

RFAs are a little kinder than when I went through the process ten years ago but for an editor with such limited editing experience as Starfall2015 would face a lot of cruel comments. In general, I don't encourage editors to go through an RFA unless they are ready for war and have a thick skin. It isn't always a horrible experience but you never can tell what will happen and I think an RFA would cause Starfall2015 to leave the project. I just came here to offer a little support because you are facing a lot of criticism for encouraging them to run an RFA. I think, for new editors, and I consider you to be pretty new, it's best to focus on improving articles and staying away from the drama of noticeboards. There is always a chance for a boomerang when you participate and it's much safer to build up your editing experience. If you are looking for companionship, try participating in WikiProjects or getting onto a Discord channel. Happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Liz, I appreciate your kind words. I will avoid the noticeboards from now on and look into WikiProjects. LordDiscord (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not joking. You could help more than one person here. Your work has improved because you made the good choices. Consider it. BusterD (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Start by doing some reading. Visit the user's talk page and talk to them like a normal person. Maybe tell them something about yourself. Maybe talk about when you got in trouble but you're still here. Talk about your willingness to consider my offer. Why would you be helping anyway? Ask yourself first. Agreeing isn't all ribbons and rainbows (for either of you). I suspect we're dealing with an actual human being, not an LLM. But if I cut the editor loose and they go back to abusive behavior, I'll have my own choices. One way or the other, I owe you a favor for merely considering it. Not sure exactly how we'll keep track. Wikipedia thanks you. I'll give you a few hours to think about it. Glad to answer questions. BusterD (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

BTW, User:CoffeeCrumbs has offered to help as well if everyone likes the idea. Might take some pressure off everybody. BusterD (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Buster, thanks for encouraging me on this, I think this would be good for both me and Baangla if it works out. I read through that article and made a post on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baangla#Mentoring LordCollaboration (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You are a natural. Honest, direct. I'm impressed. BusterD (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I could not be more pleased how you've done here. Now just stay on today's lesson. Do the WP:5P reading as well. Let's not talk about editing. Let's talk about learning something new. For now, I have some huskies requiring immediate service. BusterD (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much BusterD, I will focus on that for the day. Have a good walk! LordCollaboration (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Good day! Think about a subject matter which would interest both Baangla and yourself and make it a project for the two of you. Start with an existing stub if possible. Talk to me about it here. Then mosey over to their talk and look at what we've accomplished in a few hours. If you agree in principle, I'll create a signature section where all three of our sigs appear on the same line. At that point, it's entirely on all three of us. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

One more thing: if this ends badly, it's not anybody's fault. Accept that possibility now. I've seen some pretty gruesome and disappointing stuff. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you think Lanai/related pages would be a good start? Definitely not a stub, but seems like we could probably find some more recent information to add to it or recent topics. I wanted to give them leeway in deciding. And thanks for steering away from contentious topics. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Low-profile stubs are excellent locations where a mentorship may work without interruption. I'm sure there are many Hawaii-related stubs to work on. As a long-time user in good standing, you have access to WP:The Wikipedia Library. You will find a mountain of useful sources there, available for free. I have a newspapers.com account via the library so I can help if you need it.

Immediately under the Wikipedia logo in the upper left corner of every page, there's a link called Random article. I highly recommend this method of finding some unusual subjects for improvement. While many subject matter WP:Portals are now deleted, Portal:Hawaii is active, so that might be a place to browse island-related topics. A nice category tree and many links. As it turns out, I lived in Honolulu when I was a child. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Added some stuff on your sites article. This is an excellent pagespace choice and gives you both work entirely away from normal conflict zones. This will become more difficult for both of you once you begin to do more reading. The culture of the islands' peoples is arguably thousands of years old. The native plants, animals, and humans of pre-exposure Hawaii were a unique independently-arising natural culture. Island people (sea-going people) are different for non-obvious anthropological reasons. What has happened to Hawaii in the last 225 years constitutes a huge loss for humanity, IMHO. Great Britain and the new U.S. were both anxious to stake colonial claims, and much of the original society/culture was lost. I'm glad Niihau is kept largely restricted, but while the islands today are a tourist's paradise, (speaking as someone who lived within walking distance of this site when he was in 5th grade), what has been lost culturally was enormous. BusterD (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: How many people in Hawaii still follow the pre-Christian religions? What were those religions called? Apart from Filipinos and Japs people of Japanese heritage, were there Native Americans or Native Hawaiians there before? What happened to them now? Did they use witchcraft? Could they heal witchcraft related issues?-Baangla (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for the above, so that I can add them to the respective articles?-Baangla (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Google is thattaway. I threw you some bones, I'm not going to be your research intern. BusterD (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

"Japs" is an inappropriate way to refer to people of Japanese heritage. When we make a pubic mistake, it is wise to strike through (<s></s>) which would look like japs. On any Wikipedia, we should avoid using disparaging terms without specific reason. Lenny Bruce once made a famous point about utilizing a derogatory term repeatedly as a means to disarm the violence of the term. But on Wikipedia we should avoid the sort of BOLD which got Mr. Bruce thrown in jail. I'm going to ask you, Baangla, to strikethough the offending term. I'm going to insist upon a response. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You are not required to answer but how old are you, Baangla? The reason I boldly ask is that you have been in trouble largely because of the lack of (forgive me) maturity demonstrated in your edits. In your exchanges with me and LordC you seem to be interested in witchcraft and ghosts. You seem to toss insulting epithets casually. These seem like (forgive me) immature behaviors to display on a highly-visible planetary platform. I do not disparage the young in heart, but I caution Baangla to demonstrate more maturity in behavior when literally anyone in the planet can read what you've written (even years from today) and justifiably object. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry!-Baangla (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

What's a bit ironic is that I think in some ways "witchcraft" and "ghosts" represent a western glance of the authentic social and religious views of native islanders. What I complain about being lost was the songs, the stories, the beliefs of pre-exposure island culture. So we're actually talking about the same things, but using different metaphors. BusterD (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Good job on the striking through, btw. Everyone sticks their keyboard in their mouth occasionally. It's an excellent idea to know how to redact one's own words. Don't ever strikethrough somebody else's words. That's a bad action. A strikethrough represents a self-withdrawal of a word or words (where a removal may appear to be covering up for an error). BusterD (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hollywood movies use the word, so I did not know that it was offensive. I am just retired.-Baangla (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks BusterD, and thank you Baangla for striking the comment. I probably won’t have much time for research until the weekend, but will definitely get on that. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Everybody's doing something useful. BusterD (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I found this and this and I think it satisfies me (for now).-Baangla (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, you are not required to make a full time job of mentoring. Up until very recently, 90% of your edits have been to main space, with edits to many articles, which is always great to see. Don't feel like you must at all costs make a mentoring project successful. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee, I will keep that in mind. I did put a lot of work into main-space in June-July, but I felt burned out/upset after I got accused of trolling. I feel like helping Baangla will help show I am here in good faith, in addition to hopefully helping them become a more constructive editor. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Then that's great. :) Valereee (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

LordCollaboration, you have impressed me (and others) during this episode. Your behavior has shined, made all of en.wikipedia look good. Thank you, truly. Now with the application of the community topic ban, we're in a new era. Any editor may report a violation; any admin may choose to act. So if the mentee decides to act badly, it's entirely on them. Don't freak if they get themselves blocked. You and I might do a little work between us. You've earned more of my trust and admiration. You should benefit from this effort; in some important ways you already have. Think about something onwiki you'd like to accomplish. Together, we can make it happen. You are no longer alone on English Wikipedia. You have put yourself on my map (and Valereee's too). BusterD (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, BusterD. I really appreciate your help and encouragement. I’m sorry things haven’t gone nearly as well as hoped, and I hope I haven’t wasted the community’s time.

I’ve been considering doing some work on the Sampit conflict article for a while. My wife moved to Kalimantan as a very young child in the aftermath of the conflict and told me some of the wild legends around it. I was curious what actually happened, so checked out our article on it, which was contradictory and confusing. I cleaned up the lead based on the sources used in the article, but I never got around to doing more research. Most of the current sources are news stories in the immediate aftermath; some recent academic sources would definitely be ideal if I can find them. The negative is that my Indonesian is poor, so I would be rather reliant on Google translate and nagging my wife for most sources. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I honestly don't remember why I watchlisted your talk page, but I have been enjoying watching your progress so far, and have been seriously impressed with your conduct and tenacity. If you ever need anything from me, please don't hesitate to reach out and I'll do my best to assist. Best regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Grumpylawnchair, I appreciate it :) LordCollaboration (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I reapplied the indef block on Baangla this morning. I felt they were gaming the mentorship in the same casual way they had gamed the ECP. LordC, you should not consider this a failure, or a mistake. I'd label this an adventure, and one which reflected quite well on your efforts. Some wikipedians aren't yet mature enough to police themselves. Despite their protestations, Baangla is clearly a very young contributor. BusterD (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

+1. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks BusterD, I agree this was the best option at this point. I hope they take the recent advice offered LordCollaboration (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As they do say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grumpylawnchair @BusterD

Hello again to both of you! I've been reading up and taking notes on several Indonesia-related topics since we last spoke.

My furthest along one is here: User:LordCollaboration/sandbox

I need to do a sweep through the citations to make sure everything is proper and include quotes for the physical books/other not easily available sources, but I figured it was at the point where I could use some input, as this is the first article I have created. Any thoughts/criticisms would be greatly appreciated if you have some time. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Aye, I'll take a look at it right now. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, here's a few of my notes (I reviewed to WP:GA standard, since I think the article is already at that quality or close to it). I'll add onto this later after I get some more time:

• Is Ledo a shortening of Sanggau Ledo district?
• The Dayak people are one of the indigenous ethnic groups in West Kalimantan – could probably be shortened to The Dayak people are indigenous to West Kalimantan
• Many were dressed in traditional war attire. What is Dayak traditional war attire?
• although some academics find estimates in the thousands as plausible Which academics?
• Press freedom subsection, perhaps "Censorship" would be a more apt title for it?
• Perhaps combine the piecemeal one-sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs?

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I've incorporated those changes.

Ledo is a separate, neighboring district (there's also a Sanggau Regency, mentioned in my piece as well, which is also completely separate...). All of the red links have an Indonesian Wikipedia page, I am thinking of creating them here at some point.

I cut the part on war attire since my sources don't go into any further detail. LordCollaboration (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll come up with a more detailed review in the next few days. Sincerely, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Grumpylawnchair, just to let you know, I moved it to draft space in case anyone else wanted to comment as well. Draft:Sanggau_Ledo_riots LordCollaboration (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Aye right, sorry, rubbish few weeks, haven't had much time for Wikipedia. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all! I really appreciate you reading through it and providing feedback, it was very helpful. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

For your mentoring efforts, even if they didn't turn out the way we had hoped.

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Also I'll hold myself to BusterD's offer, if there's anything you would like accomplished on-wiki, please do let me know and we can do it together. You deserve it after all you've done for the project. Best regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Sad how it ended up, but I will definitely start working on a project soon. LordCollaboration (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need anything or want to collaborate. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed, that you undid my revisions in the title article. Although I agree, that not all statements there were supported by reliable references, most were. Also, the infor, that I added was quite useful: it is not JUNK or UNTRUE. If you have specific suggestions on what can be improved, please let mw know. There are also other people, who work on this article, and they can improve it fast than I can. Please come back in a month, and check how much better this article becomes. ApoieRacional (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not say it was "junk". As I said in my revert message, it appeared to be AI generated and there were several cases where I confirmed they were not supported by the sources you used. I stand by this assessment.

I see another user reverted your changes again after you reinstated them, saying outright that it is AI generated. And a third user on your talk page also said it appeared AI generated.

As I asked on your talk page after reverting the edit, which I see you did not respond to, can you confirm if you used AI to generate this or not? LordCollaboration (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I think it would be a deep shame if you were blocked over this, as you have shown that you are capable of very useful contributions (the Jacques Baud article you created is a good example of this). I recommend coming clean on use of AI (if you are indeed using it) and promising to spend more time ensuring your changes are supported by reliable sources from now on. Best wishes. LordCollaboration (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. ~2025-42284-42 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi LordCollaboration, I am an administrator and checkuser here. I did not see the complaint that this refers to, but I happened to see your discussion at User talk:Glebushko0703#Please stop insinuating that I might be a sock puppet. I warned Glebushko0703 that repeatedly accusing you of sockpuppetry without evidence is harassment and I would block them if they don't knock it off. They removed my comment 7 minutes later, but that is evidence that they read it.

Their revert of my warning led me to investigate further. It seems they are upset about having been banned from a topic and are blaming you for it, and are threatening to report you for suspicion of sockpuppetry as a quid pro quo for you withdrawing a complaint somewhere else. I want to be clear with you about this: on English Wikipedia we do not check users (as in use the checkuser tool to review technical information about your connection) unless a user has provided clear evidence supporting their suspicion. We're not allowed to check on a "hunch" or "just because" (see WP:NOTFISHING). I can't guarantee that you wouldn't be checked if an investigation was requested with good evidence, but at the moment I see none. The motivation of the editor requesting the check would also be taken into consideration in the decision to check or not.

If Glebushko0703 continues bothering you about this, please let me know or report to another administrator. Thanks. (Courtesy ping ToBeFree) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Ivanvector, I appreciate it. LordCollaboration (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem to conduct your investigation rather poorly, since I wasn't topic blocked in the first place (it was just a poor phrasing), and the user didn't have any complaints against me (apart from the accusation itself). On the contrary, i'm the one who had few complaints regarding the user being suspicious by observing his behaviour.

For a clarification of what have actually happened please read the full discussion on my page, and to find out why I "blame" this user see User talk:ToBeFree#Block.

P.S. My swift removal of your comment indeed signified that I've read it, I didn't want to upset the user by making him see that admins have noticed it, since at the time you posted it I was trying to figure out how to remove my notice board message. Gigman (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they continue to claim that they "have plenty of evidence" that I am a sock puppet. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, now I see where're you going with this after getting a boost of confidence...

Where exactly in this diff do I claim you to be a sockpuppet again? I'm just explaining the situation to another user who didn't understand it. "Plenty of evidence" refferes to my logical reasons to suspect you + thing you have politely asked me not to express publically.

I want you to know that this admin is aware of what's going on and he has seen the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/3 Löwi discussion. I'm not an active contributor to that investigation yet. Gigman (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say you claimed I was a sock puppet, you continually insinuate that I might be a sock puppet. Here you literally said "I've stated my reasoninng in the discussion on my page and this user insisted not to be investigated, so I dropped the case. I still have plenty of evidence" If you say you have plenty of evidence for a sock puppet case, that is absolutely insinuating that I might be a sock puppet. Here again, you say you have "logical reasons to suspect". No, you do not. Stop saying this without posting an actual investigation.

You've explained nothing. You refuse to stop posting that you have evidence while also refusing to actually post this "evidence" at a sock puppet investigation. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Check the other discussion we're having where I explain my usage of the word "evidence".

I have personally killed this topic yesterday, but you still fiercely insist I'm accusing you of something that you are not to 2 admins already. Perhaps another reason I should add to my suspicion list is "you desperately trying to get me blocked", be that by supposedly provoking me into edit war or by word picking from my discussions. Gigman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Check the other discussion we're having where I explain my usage of the word "evidence". Changing to plenty of "reasons" to suspect I am a sock is not better at all.

I have personally killed this topic yesterday

Clearly not, since you continue to say you have plenty of reasons to suspect me of being a sock.

but you still fiercely insist I'm accusing you of something that you are not to 2 admins already.

No, I did not say it to two admins. I said it to one, above. It's not my fault you are making these accusations on an admin's page, and I responded to you there.

Perhaps another reason I should add to my suspicion list is "you desperately trying to get me blocked"

Very convincing evidence. Definitely post this at SPI.

supposedly provoking me into edit war

Supposedly? Who is saying I provoked you into edit warring? LordCollaboration (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You will always have something to say in my opposition, this conversation will never end wouldn't it? I might not have a right to accuse you of anything, but I do have a full right to be suspicious of you and your actions personally. Let's just look at facts:

You share a point of view on a certain subject with a community that spams socks, and you have participated in a discussion with them and on their side.

Your presence is quite frequent on my screen after i conducet any sort of activity, no matter what's the cause of it.

Your page is new and relatively empty.

And now you simply cannot get this topic done with by making me respond, presumably in hope of seeing something that gets me banned (maybe abother "evidence" word, I don't see another reason for this)

Those are my reasons, and all of them allow me to be logically wary of you, I think it's completely understandable. Gigman (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Why are you incapable of following a very simple request?

Again, I do not want to hear anything about your "suspicions" until you open a SPI. If any of these were actually true and logical, you would post the diffs, and yet you continually refuse. Leave me alone. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Please file an SPI report with whatever evidence you have. Thank you. ~2025-43978-49 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Gigman has now edited one of my comments, which they said was "just for fun". They've been warned about this before. I don't know where else to bring this and don't want to discuss with them on their page again, but I would like if they stopped messing with me. LordCollaboration (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention that in the edit I added the European country that you missed in your short description list. At first I initially thought you forgot it, but based on my previous experience with you, I also was suspecting you at bias regarding that topic. The "just for fun" diff reffers to that possibility, and since you have removed it, my suspicion wasn't false I guess. Gigman (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I've chosen to block User:Glebushko0703 from this page for 72 hours for sustained harassment above. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Another comment on Talk:Estonia since this. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

And now they edited my comment again, to collapse my table, along with a false claim that several users complained about usability/length (as far as I can tell, one other user said it wasn't helping, and one user changed their vote because of it). Normally, I wouldn't care, but since I literally just told them not to edit my comments and they have been told like a dozen times to stay away from me, I am annoyed. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

And now they said I "expressed [my] opposition in very perculiar matter". I am sick of this. I avoided the ANI thread before, but I am going to make one of my own when I have some time. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

If I may. Have patients, as I suspect they're young & impulsive. If we can get'em to concentrate 'soley' on implementing the Dec 2025 RFC into bios? that would be productive for us all. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I very much wanted to avoid all this (I avoided commenting in the last ANI thread and the multiple other threads on this for this very reason), but it's been less than 24 hours since that thread closed and they agreed to "drop te stick and just ignore that user from now on then." I have made zero comments on this topic since then and login this morning and see my same comment was edited again (less than 12 hours after the close), and then told that I am acting "perculiar". I am losing my mind. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Totally understand. If he continues after this? it's your call. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

PS - I'll have 'one final' talk with him. Try & get'em to stop pestering. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, they have since apologized and apparently are taking a week break (which I think would be healthy). Thanks for talking to them, I appreciate it. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Glebushko0703, please do not email me. I am not striking my comment. I don't care about this, I just don't want to hear about this topic ever again. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

LordCollaboration,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 03:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Volten001 ^☎ 03:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Would you kindly consider explaining your revert based on "misinformation" here:

Talk:Victoria_Nuland#Source_"suspended_for_misinformation"

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the case at hand, but how wild it was to see Sakwa's name pop up at ANI! I met him at random several years ago while we were both staying at a hostel in Montreal, and we chatted for a bit. Seemed like a solid guy, though I firmly disagree with his politics (which I only became aware of following our chat). The Kip ^(contribs) 23:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Howdy. Just to echo my response. I do indeed like the idea of (whenever) having an RFC about adding footnotes to all bios of people, who were born or died in countries that no longer exist. Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Prussia, etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be the most neutral and useful option. Not sure on the other options to include though, seem to be a lot of opinions on how to handle it. Even for the seemingly simple short description one, we got five different "other" options and multiple attempts to devalidate; probably the high emotions from the previous RFC contributed a lot to this. If nobody starts something in the next couple months when things (hopefully) die down, I'll probably make a comment to get some options. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, best to wait for emotions to cool. We'll have to keep an eye out for any potential sockpuppets and/or meatpupets, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 10 January 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 Houndering suspicion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on my talk page.

You have my attention on the article talk page, so there must be a good reason to demand extra attention on my user page.

It was you who started with "misinformation" claims and reverting an addition based on this assessment. Argueing that the Rising_(web_series) was "suspended for misinformation" is itself a false ("mis") information - that was on Youtube, whose editing guidelines are dubious and can not be discussed openly. Then you bring up a peculiar "left / right populism" as a kind of universal enemy. My hints to abandon these games are based on WP:AGF.

Please, stick to actual content questions and refrain from provocation attempts in the future. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bernd.Brincken. If you are unsure on why things like "_You_ are obviously on the side of misinformation spreading." are personal attacks and things like "Rising was temporarily suspended on Youtube for misinformation" are not personal attacks, I would suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Thanks! LordCollaboration (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You reversed this revision with the reason "unsourced". You're most likely a griefer for points but anyway, since when do sentences claiming "most likely is" have to have a source? The edit I made is clearly something you don't get to read in a news article. ~2026-56217-3 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-56217-3. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Saying "most likely" is a claim and needs to be sourced. Also, please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, although based on your wall and contributions it seems like you do that often.

Still, saying "Shahed is most likely a pun on shahid" is an objective opinion, not a claim per se. You could've reasoned against that, could've claimed that was untrue, but "unsourced" makes it seem like I was deliberately trying to sell a false point with whatever intention, which was never the case. ~2026-56217-3 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

And please do not comment on my talk page if you cannot be civil. Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ~2026-59626-2. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~2026-59626-2 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is LordCollaboration. Thank you. —Kelob2678 (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kelob2678 1) That's not what ArbCom AE is for, 2) the diffs you provided do not show WP:HOUNDING. The admins over there are going to tell you the same thing, so it's best that you withdraw the report yourself. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration You rolled back my edit in the article The planned bug (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I gave some of my reasoning in the edit summaries. Your edits introduced wording that did not make sense, include unexplained content removal, are out of place and unsourced, and/or adding bad links. Here you added a link for her being the head of an organization to the article about human heads, moved "she did not" seemingly randomly to another location in the article, removed information without explanation, etc. Here you added unsourced and speculative information about the Russo-Ukrainian war to "Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia". Please see the link posted on your talk page about how to contribute constructively here, as at present it is unfortunately disruptive. Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Czarking0 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear and firm comments on the talk page of Eerik-Niiles Kross. In situations where Wikipedia falls under political pressure, we should always try to make sure cooler heads and established policy prevail. Thank you for calling out conflicts of interest, unhelpful remarks, and generally ensuring civility in this heated discussion. Dess Dedalus (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate this! :) LordCollaboration (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, it appears that Eerik Kross has made considerable edits to the page of Mary Jordan (filmmaker), who is his wife. I'm newer and don't know how to evaluate a page for COI issues. What do we do here? Dess Dedalus (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I am still somewhat new here as well, but xtools shows at least 9.7% authorship for Kross on that page (https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Mary%20Jordan%20%28filmmaker%29) and just spot checking the current version to the version they created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Jordan_(filmmaker)&oldid=437423360) shows some significant similarities. I would think that's enough to tag it the same way as @Rhain did on the Kross page, although it has certainly improved a lot (they have made over 50% of the edits, but only have 10% authorship). LordCollaboration (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, Who Wrote That? indicated that there was only one full remaining sentence on Jordan's article written by Enkross: In 2011 the Ford Foundation awarded Word Above the Street a grant to develop the Water Tank Project; otherwise, it's just a few stray words from the first revision, as Editchecker123 did a lot of rewriting work in 2023. That being said, I agree it was worth tagging now that we're aware of the connection. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you so much! Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Now that the RFC at Kallas has been closed & the decision is to include the footnote there. I'm wondering where is a good place to seek a consensus to have the footnote-in-question added to all Baltic bios, where required. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, where the first one was held? I still like the idea of a more expansive consensus (ironically, the Baltics, and this period of Baltic history, seem less useful to me than many others, since it is pretty obvious that Estonian SSR is modern-day Estonia, whereas Generalbezirk Estland or Russian Empire is far less obvious), but perhaps that should wait until the Baltics are finished. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think opening an informatl discussion there, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Indrek: would like your input here, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

WT:MOSINFOBOX seems reasonable. But I think it might be prudent to first work out the wording of the footnote at Talk:Kaja Kallas. Indrek (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I've already opened up an informal discussion at MOS:INFOBOX. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear LordCollaboration, as I said in my edit summary, if you read the article further down, and not just what is at the very start of it, you will find the original quote from Ghana's foreign minister that says “We were informed that 272 Ghanaians are believed to have been lured into battle since 2022 for which an estimated 55 have been killed and 2 captured as prisoners of war.” They were informed by Ukraine upon the minister's visit to Kyiv. So they did not confirm it themselves, but repeated what was said to them. The title of the article is stating it as fact yes, but the Minister himself in his original statement is only saying what they were told. As per earlier editor discussions from some months ago, figures that originated from Ukrainian services (like the 'I Want to Live' hotline) are to be used as an upper estimate, when other lower figures from other sources are available. So, I hope that clears up everything, and I would kindly ask that you revert this cancelation of my edit. As you reverted me, I was in the process of reinserting the Guardian article for additional verification of the upper estimate, but faced an edit conflict. I have no problem with 55 being kept or the Guardian source. But, since the figures are originally coming from Ukraine (as is evident by what the Ghanian Minister said), then it represents an upper estimate. Thank you in advance, cheers and happy editing! :) EkoGraf (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I did read the article. We cite a reliable source that says that Ghana's foreign minister says at least 55 were killed. At least 55 Ghanaians have been killed in Russia’s war with Ukraine after being “lured into battle”, Ghana’s foreign minister has said after a visit to Kyiv in which officials raised the issue of Russian recruitment of African people. That is a minimum estimate, not a maximum, and where they initially were informed about this doesn't matter. They are backing this information up. And you do not know that they did no confirmation, the Guardian article does not say either way. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It pretty much matters if they were informed by Ukraine, which is one of the two belligerents in the conflict, and thus is as much unreliable as Russia is when they claim casualty figures sustained by their enemy. I repeat, in his original sentence the foreign minister simply said they "were informed" by Ukraine. Nowhere in the article does it say they confirmed the figure. In fact, the paragraph in the heading of the article states that it is "thought" 55 were killed (again not confirmed). Ignoring the fact that Ghana was only repeating the figure they were told by Ukraine (and not confirming it themselves) does not give a NPOV balance to the figures presented in the article (since other sources have confirmed thus far only one Ghanian by name to have died). But if you wish to present solely a figure that was not confirmed by a third (non-belligerent) party, fine. EkoGraf (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We are not using Ukraine's statement, we are using Ghana's. They are not a belligerent in the war. They directly said that "at least" 55 have been killed, according to the Guardian. I don't see how that can be changed to a maximum of 55 killed, as that is precisely the opposite of what the source says.

Subheadlines are not reliable, nor does the subheadline say that. It says, Foreign minister says 272 Ghanaians are thought to have been drawn into battle since 2022, after he visited Kyiv. Nothing about the number killed.

NPOV balance is a separate issue, not mentioned in your reverts of the two other editors from what I saw. If there are more recent reliable sources that say fewer have died, I agree we should use those as well. I recommend taking this to the talk page of the article rather than my page, so more editors can participate in how to display that. Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ghana is citing in its statement a figure that was provided to them by Ukraine (admitted by the Foreign Minister himself). So the source from where the figure came is Ukraine. Ghana's minister at no point said that the figure was confirmed. But fine, do as you think is best. EkoGraf (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Although, now that I look more into it, I don't think NPOV balance qualifies at all. This is by far the most reported recent number, by many reliable sources.

Reuters: More than 50 Ghanaians have been killed in the Ukraine war after being "lured into battle", Ghana's foreign minister said after a visit to Kyiv in which officials raised the issue of recruitment of Africans.

AP: At least 55 Ghanaians have died fighting for Russia in Ukraine, Ghana’s foreign minister said Friday, one of the highest death tolls from among several African countries whose citizens are fighting in the war.

BBC: At least 55 Ghanaians have been killed fighting in the war in Ukraine, with two others currently held as prisoners of war, Ghana's foreign affairs minister says. ... The 55 Ghanaians is the highest number of casualties from a single African country to have been officially confirmed in the Ukraine-Russia war.

Kyiv Post: At least 55 Ghanaians have been killed fighting for Russia in the war against Ukraine, Ghana’s foreign minister said Friday

Africa News: Ghana’s foreign affairs minister says at least 55 of the country’s citizens have been killed fighting for Russia in its war in Ukraine. ... The death of the Ghanaians is the highest number of casualties from a single African country to have been officially confirmed in the war.

This is also at Arab News, The Straits Times, The Washington Post, etc., as well it being supported in the INPACT report.

France24, which is your old source, now says 55 "confirmed" to have been killed by Ablakwa (Ghana's foreign minister). Nor is the old source even an investigation into how many died, they talk to one family of a Ghanaian who died, without any comment on how many total died as far as I can see.

Thus the NPOV balance problem seems to be massively the opposite way, as we currently have no source saying only one died and many reporting the 55 minimum number, with some specifically saying confirmed. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

All sources are reporting the figure that was provided to Ghana's Minister by Ukraine after his visit to Kyiv and which he reported on. That doesn't make Ukraine's figure confirmed or reliable. But like I said, if you think this is best... EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@EkoGraf I guess it will only be a reliable statement once trackanazi confirms it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Trackanazi is not RS so it is not being used in Wikipedia article's for verification, as I previously said. EkoGraf (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm confused about the dispute. We all seem to agree that Ghana’s foreign affairs minister made these comments. We all seem to agree these comments were made after the minister was briefed by Ukraine state officials. I haven't seen any sources presented which claim the minister received these (apparent) estimates from any other authority. Why are we insistent on using Wikipedia's voice when reasonable note in attribution would do? Both sources could be considered valid. In any case, infoboxes are not ideal places to edit war. Let's all act like adults and keep our disagreements on the merits. BusterD (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion continued on the talk page, by the way: Talk:Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian war#Extremely questionable removal of referenced content I don't have a problem with including a footnote giving details about where it is sourced from, as long as we go by what the sources say, and do not make assumptions. The vast majority of the rest would probably need footnotes too. This is one of the best sourced numbers, having a reliable secondary source (INPACT) doing the verification and being confirmed by the Ghana foreign minister. Most of our numbers seem to be manual counts by ourselves, which should probably be noted. LordCollaboration (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian war 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.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)