User talk:Dahawk04

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

August 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for editing multiple articles with hallucinated references and continuing to deny LLM use when questioned about it.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dahawk04, you're welcome to appeal this block at any point, but I would suggest editing without it for at least a month. You can use edit requests to make edits, or you can create drafts. If you can demonstrate through your actions that you're not using LLMs to create content, I'm sure your unblock request would succeed. -- asilvering (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I don't understand why I was permanently blocked to begin with. They last comment on the thread before it was closed agreed with my point? I admitted to stopping the use of LLM and was still banned? Dahawk04 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask @The Bushranger, as the blocking admin. I didn't block you (I just shut down the thread because it was obviously just going to spiral into nonsense that you'd feel compelled to keep replying to). But I'll add that you're not "permanently" blocked - I know this sounds a bit like splitting hairs, but it's "indefinitely". What that means is that you're blocked until the blocking admin is confident that the problems won't recur. Some "indefinite" blocks last only a few hours, or even minutes. It's not intended to shut you out forever. Some solid edit requests that demonstrate that you've learned from the thread will sort things out. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As was said in the thread: As far as "only one link was hallucinated" -- unfortunately, this is the kind of thing where one fake source is one too many. And you remain pblocked because even after admitting to some LLM useage you continued: If you want me to sit here and say the MGB and Fire articles were LLM hallucinations I won’t because they’re not and that’s not stonewalling I’m just not going to lie. when multiple erronious citations were provided for Mass General Brigham. If they weren't hallucinated then they were deliberately and manually input erroniously which is possibly even worse. Given your continued arguments against evidence - and, IMHO, your 'admission' to LLM use 'which I stopped using' comes across as 'saying what I believe is wanted to be heard', or more frankly 'I'm sorry I got caught' - it is clear to me at least that allowing you to contribute to the encyclopedia is an unacceptable risk. If you can convince another admin otherwise, then by all means you're free to attempt. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for totally screwing up and ignoring my edit request.

You said you added Ahmed Ghandour to the list of Israeli assassinations article but you never did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Israeli_assassinations&diff=prev&oldid=1298282095

Thanks for nothing. 35.143.146.10 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is run by volunteers—no one owes you anything. I suggest you create an account and contribute yourself instead of obsessing over an mis-edit from two months ago. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sa

Mot 119.13.61.226 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Dahawk04. Thank you for your work on Saint Anne's Hospital (Fall River, Massachusetts). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this well-developed and referenced article for the this hospital, coming up to its 120th year. It's clear and appropriately linked.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Hi all, thanks for reading.

I’d like to ask for a review of the indefinite block on my account. I understand why it was applied: some of my earlier edits included inaccurate citations, and I take responsibility for that.

A few points about what I’ve done and how I’ll proceed:

I did use an LLM in the past and I think that contributed to the bad citations. I stopped using LLMs before the complaints were made.
I’ve tried to go back and corrected the problematic edits where I could, removing or replacing inaccurate citations with verifiable sources and will continue to review previous edits.
A recent reviewer left this note about my work: “Thank you for creating this well-developed and referenced article for the this hospital, coming up to its 120th year. It's clear and appropriately linked.” I’m including that to show I’m trying to make useful, verifiable contributions.
From now on I’ll only add material I can back up with reliable sources. For any non-trivial changes I’ll either put a draft in my userspace/sandbox or use the edit request process so others can check my work first.

I’m willing to accept whatever probationary arrangement the admins think appropriate to demonstrate I can contribute responsibly.

I’m sorry to the editors who had to clean up my mistakes. I want to be a constructive volunteer here and help improve Wikipedia. I’d appreciate the chance to show, through verifiable edits and by following community processes, that I’ve learned from this.

Thanks for considering this.

— Dahawk04 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dahawk04 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I accept responsibility for earlier edits that included inaccurate citations; I stopped using LLMs before complaints were raised and have corrected the problematic edits. A reviewer recently wrote: "Thank you for creating this well-developed and referenced article for the this hospital, coming up to its 120th year. It's clear and appropriately linked." I will follow WP best practices and use only verifiable source while I rebuild trust. Dahawk04 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As was stated above, you are only partially blocked. You are still able to edit talk pages and create drafts. However, you have not done either since your block was enacted. As the adage goes, "Actions speak louder than words." I recommend editing in the draftspace or recommending edits on talk pages to show you will not cause further disruption to Wikipedia if unblocked. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.