User talk:Counterfeit Purses

Welcome!

Hi Counterfeit Purses! I noticed your contributions to Ian McGinty and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note or two on deletion...

Deletion can end up being a pretty complicated process here on Wikipedia. It's not a requirement, but probably a good idea to watch and participate in a good many discussions before starting nominating articles for deletion. Since you've jumped right in, you should know that competency is required, and you should gain that competence by learning about the Deletion policy. One of the first things you should pick up is that there are a certain number of reasons for deletion. "Just a high school" is not one of them, and there are literally thousands of high school articles.
Before nominating an article, you should perform certain steps to insure that the article should be deleted. Although it is not one of the steps, I would argue that for articles similar to the ones you've been nominating, you should consider accessing the wikipedia library, especially newspapers.com, and doing a thorough search there. You are not required to do so, but if you do not, others will, and your nomination will likely not be successful. If you repeatedly make unsuccessful nominations, it wastes other editors time. You wouldn't appreciate others wasting your time, not does anyone I know appreciate that! Eventually, if an editor wastes too much of other peoples time, it may be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Disruptive editing could result in sanctions of various sorts. Please take the time to learn how to edit productively, rather than go down a negative path. Thanks. — Jacona (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona I don't have access to the Wikipedia library. If there are reliable sources that show why a particular high school is important enough to be included in Wikipedia, shouldn't they be in the article? You added two short news items from a community newspaper in nearby Stockton. If those are the best things you found, I'm not sure why would think this is anything more than just another high school and I don't think every single high school in the United States needs to be in Wikipedia. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, you obviously think you know best. You're probably right, since you've done so much to advance the encyclopedia. Bye! — Jacona (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona Rudeness and sarcasm will not help me to understand your points. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find my comments rude and sarcastic. Please consider doing some actual editing, getting access to sources, learn the deletion policy, the notability policy. After you've gotten the experience and the tools necessary to evaluate whether an article should be included or deleted, consider nominating articles for deletion. It's as if you've decided to run a nuclear reactor without even bothering to learn the periodic table. — Jacona (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona I found your comments rude because they were intended to be rude. I honestly don't know how you expect people to take your advice when it follows a disingenuous non-apology. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that your ability to see a source doesn't matter. Also realize that sources do not have to be online. They do not have to be in the article, they merely have to exist. This is Wikipedia policy. Learn the policy before deciding you're in charge. — Jacona (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona Please stop posting here. Thank you. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's obvious you don't want to learn. Bye! — Jacona (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Would someone please ask Jacona to leave me alone? Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jacona will continue posting here, and I'm not going to ping them here and tempt them to engage further. If they do come back, ping me and I can talk to them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at your 2 high school AfDs as well as the exchange above with Jacona. I reckon you're probably feeling pretty frustrated - hang in there. I suggest you just pause initiating deletions until you have enough edits to qualify for Wikipedia Library access. In the meantime, I encourage you to participate in lots of AfDs so you'll be all primed to go once you can access the Wikipedia Library. We always need good deleters. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very kind. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your previous discussion is likely in violation of Wikipedia:Child protection, if you want to report such content, arbcom and Wikipedia foundation are your place, do not discuss about that on wiki. -Lemonaka‎ 03:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka I don't see how it could be a violation of that policy, but if that were the case, I am sure Primefac would have warned me themselves. If Primefac has any concerns about child safety, I am sure they have contacted the necessary people and the situation will be dealt with appropriately. Thanks for your message anyhow. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Mormon Letters revert

I removed some material from that page, and you reverted it believing it is due. I've started a conversation on the talk page of the article. Please come over to discuss, and bring some non primary sources please Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki stalking

I see you going through my wiki history. Its creepy. Don't be creepy. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this deletion discussion for an AI generated image that you tried to add to the Wikipedia article for a living person? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you created minutes after I asked you about your reverts to the AML page? Yeah, that's it! Kinda weird how you found a common (and CC) image moments after I asked you for a secondary source about the content you added to the AML. Do you mean to infer this was incidental, and not that you are stalking my edits? Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings

Re, the Emily Willis discussion, where we had a disagreement across several forums. I just wanted to let you know that, reviewing the discussions, I hold nothing against you. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you

Hello. I do appreciate you not taking admins for granted, and welcome to the conservative interpretation of BLP policy. If you want to demonstrate that someone is currently the wife of someone, and that this is a relevant matter, then the talk page is open to you. Sources which are a decade old are likely to be dismissed, in these times. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sean Ludwick. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you insist on linking the wrong user? Really? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I do actually appreciate you questioning authority. There's being questioning, challenging, critical, and then there's being obstreperous. I don't know, maybe think about the typo thing for the future? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right (and I have fixed it). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Camille Herron

I made the same mistake of adding the press template to that talk page. After my edit was reverted, I realized the article violates WP:OUTING. Just fyi. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd Thanks for the note. I wish I knew that before I figured out how to use the template. It doesn't make sense to me that we can't link to a reliable source because it identifies Wikipedia editors, but I guess Wikipedia editors' identities are more important than the facts. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy is a big deal here. I didn't even think of it before I posted it and had to figure it out afterward. I'd even put it on the other two articles mentioned as well, and had to quickly undo my edits. Just want you to know that you weren't the only one making that mistake. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI noticeboard notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Awshort (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Your recent editing history at Gilman School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You will likely be blocked the next time that you edit war. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick bit of information

Hi there! I noticed your edit summary here, and I just had a small comment. While I agree that this should not be glorified, it is considered notable, since it has been greatly covered over the past weeks and has raised controversy. Putting Luigi Mangione in the Notable Alumni list is not an attempt to glorify his actions, it is simply an attempt to further the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

If you have any other questions, feel free to hit my talk page :)

Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't realised that they had their own article. I thought it was jsut a redirect. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I'm glad the confusion has been cleared up. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I hope I didn't accidentally discourage anyone from glorifying murderers. Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that was not an attempt to glorify him or what he did. In the general term of the word, Notable can be good or bad. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable doesn't mean that someone should be included in a list of alumni. We don't list all alumni (whether they are notable or not). Ideally, we select those who are known for their outstanding achievements in some field. The inclusion of Luigi Mangione in this list is a choice. It's a choice that I wouldn't make because I don't think Wikipedia should be glorifying murderers, which is exactly what including them in lists like this does. It raises their prominence. It spreads their notoriety. It glorifies them, and by extension, their actions. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline and AI

I'm intrigued to know how you identified that edit to Pipeline as an LLM output? Is there a tool we can use? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard when you already know a particular editor has using AI. ;)

There are several online AI detectors, but none of them are great. It's quite easy to recognize bad AI-generated text if you've seen a lot of it. In this case, the bullet points are a dead giveaway. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM. I should have thought of the obvious one! I recognise the bullet-point style in AI responses but they aren't very different from our MOS:SECTION style except for their frequency. Though that depends on the article and some use them a lot (which is why we have to have MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. So, with rather little effort, a lazy editor could wrangle the LLM response just enough to pass casual inspection. Or just tell the AI to write it up in the style of a Wikipedia article, just make up some convincing subscription-only journal citations. . 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even need to be made up citations - some of the popular LLMs are able to incorporate internet searches and will happily give you an answer with links to where they got the info. There's even Stanford's STORM which will write a full Wikipedia article on demand. It's obvious LLM output, but I am sure many people wouldn't know the difference. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (he replied faintly). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF You might be interested in this paper. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, intriguing indeed. Feedback loop or vicious circle? Pollution or improvement? EFL editors using LLM to polish their otherwise valid contributions?--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLDREDIRECT

Just FYI: With this edit you removed the bold formatting from the target of a redirect against the guidance described at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT (After following a redirect: Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic ...)). As Robin M. Westman and Robin Westman redirects to this article, it is customary to bold the name so our readers understand that they've arrived at the correct article. See also WP:R#ASTONISH. Please keep this guidance in mind in the future. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. According to WP:RASTONISH, it is necessary when people are being redirected to something with different name. This is a case of being redirected to a section where the name is the same. Do you think people following that redirect will be confused? I don't. I'm not going to edit war about it, but you're bolding the name of a mass killer as if the article is about them. Do you think that's a good thing? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely different page. The section they're being sent to is labeled "Perpetrator". I think having a consistent style that our readers can rely on is a good thing, especially when it helps avoid confusion. The bold text has really only one meaning on Wikipedia, and it's not meant to promote anyone. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You think people following a redirect which is the perpetrator's name will be confused by a section called "Perpetrator"? It has the name in the first sentence. This is not an issue of confusing readers. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They will be confused because they are not at an article about Robin Westman, but a totally different article. They will be confused further because they arrived at a section labeled "Perpetrator". It's customary for us to bold names or titles that are redirects to another article to make it easier for readers to understand they've arrived at the correct location. Tens of thousands of articles already do this. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a reader can't understand why they are in a different article, reading the first sentence will fix that. I don't think we should surprise our readers, but I don't think that we should assume our readers are stupid, either. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and if that's how you feel, the correct place to get that changed is at WT:MOSTEXT. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Purses, I am in agreement with you and trying to find a remedy. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style/Text Formatting. Efficacity (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take a look. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one place where discussions are being held on this subject. Efficacity (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, and it's not helping. I will address this overall issue when I get more time. Probably on the Village Pump. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this juncture, I am inclined to say you're not right. We do have momentum. Efficacity (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Efficacity: I'd suggest you read WP:CANVASS as what you're doing here could be construed as such. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog That's reasonable advice, but I don't think this is canvassing. Efficacity told me about a discussion they had started and is keeping me updated. I may or may not participate in any of those discussions but if I do it will be because of my existing concern about the issue and not because of anything Efficacity has said here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It falls under the WP:VOTESTACKING section. They came into a discussion at a user talk page they were previously uninvolved in specifically to solicit input in another discussion based solely on your perceived position. That's exactly what canvassing is. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello, I'm ElKevbo. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo I think you may be confusing my edit with my edit summary, which was not intended to be neutral. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no confusion. The person is notable and unless you can create and apply a neutral set of criteria for the notable alumni list in that article then your deletion of this person solely because you do not like or approve of them or their actions is a blatant violation of one of our core principles. ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a neutrality issue, it's an issue of what to include in a list. I am exercising editorial judgment and excluding a mass murderer from a list of alumni because I do not believe that Wikipedia should be promoting notorious incel mass murderers. I don't object to Wikipedia having an article about Elliot Rodger but I don't think we need to include them in a list of alumni for a college from which they did not graduate. We don't include every alumnus in those lists. We don't need to include this particular one. Rodger has been added and removed from the list multiple times already. We could say there is a de facto consensus to exclude them. You are also welcome to report me for edit warring. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ekiben (sexual act)

So which banned Wikipediocracy contributor are you? Why are you uploading AI porn as you did here[1]217.136.125.52 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Belgian IP. What's gotten up your nose? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]