User talk:Driftingdrifting

Commenting in a template

Delighted to see this. I wish more people would use the function that lets you add your own comment inside a warning template. If you want your comment bolded so it stands out more, you can add an apostrophe at the beginning and end of your statement. It stands out a bit more. Or keep on with the subtle italics: whichever makes you happy. Joyous! Noise! 15:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't realize that markdown would carry through into the template, I'll try that out. I'm been trying to use that comment field more and more when patrolling, anecdotally it sometimes seems to help get the editor into a dialog rather than just plowing onward with whatever they were doing.

I see you everywhere on vandalism, and you are way up there on my list of wikipedia role models. I'll admit I had a minor heart attack when I saw you on my talk page...first reaction might have been 'oh no, what did I do' :-) Driftingdrifting (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the near-coronary! I agree with you about trying to get someone in a dialogue. The warning templates are great, but they're pretty bloated and wordy. I don't think many people actually read them, but they do seem to read the user-added text, especially if it stands out.

I also have a notepad app with a ton of "Joyous-made" comments, so I can just paste them in, either inside a template, or as a standalone comment. It's an extra couple of steps, but it lets me be short and too-the-point. Terse, even. Joyous! Noise! 17:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinead O'Connor

Driftingdrifting, contrary to your edit summary at Sinead O'Connor and your post on my talk page, none of the text I added to the Sinead O'Connor page was AI-generated, no sources were fictitious, and no information was inaccurate. I did use AI to help me find sources on a couple of topics, and some links I added reflect that. This may have been what confused you. Would you kindly reinstate the six edits that you reverted. Thank you. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several of your edits have references that have either 'gpt' in them, or more recently 'auto1..2..3'. It suggests to me (and you are at least partially confirming) that AI is being used to find, replace, select & restructure references programmatically. Doing some spot checking, you are correct that your reference links generally seem to exist, but if AI is being used to generate the references, then there are no guarantees that will always be true. More worrying, it removes the human editor decision about which citations should be included, and introduces the possibility that the references provided while real, don't support the points in the paragraph they are intended to support. Spot checking a few of your recent articles, I *do* see evidence of this where you have either replaced a citation that supported a fact with one that didn't, or you have added content that isn't supported by the reference you provided.

You are also changing articles very rapid-fire, with dozens of consecutive edits with meaningful and sometimes large edits occurring at rates sometimes exceeding one per minute. Knowing that the references you are providing are at least partially AI directed and thus questionable, it is prudent to remove what appears to be AI generated content.

It might be ok in some situations to use AI essentially as a search engine simply to find sources for you, but you would need to manually do all the steps after that including verifying the validity of the link (including its contents) just like you would if you had found the reference in a search engine but that does not appear to be what is happening here. Please do not use AI to direct edits on wikipedia. Driftingdrifting (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Vaughn--your info

If you go to the following link, you will see that your birthdate info is obviously faulty.

https://www.facebook.com/LindaVaughnMissHurst/posts/pfbid0dZi5KftsEe3e4q83nfVCZaYhKPMz6ZmAU62NmE5X21voX61b56t5Fhb8ttPnRaTYl

Linda celebrates her birthday each year on August 14, and in 2022 she celebrated her 80th, as shown by the cake in the photos and the post. The date is certain--I run a Facebook group archiving Linda's photos and her friends and family are members, in addition to Hurstette E. Samantha Colter, all of whom have confirmed that August 14 is her birthday.

As for her height, I don't know where in the world or how in the world you could possibly come up with 5 1/2 as she is 4-5 inches taller than June Cochran and June was 5'2", verifyable as June was PMOY in '62. If Linda were 5'0 June would be a pygmy. Samantha Colter is nearly six feet tall and Linda is not that much shorter. Honestly, it doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to figure out that her height is far greater than 5' 1/2". Brinkster100 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brinkster100 Facebook is not a source, neither are conversations with relatives. The current source on the page says 1983, so it is 1983 until there is some reason to say otherwise.

Same issue with measurements. We're not in the business of opinions. If you want to make a change, find a source that says what you think should be there. Driftingdrifting (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, bodymeasurements.org isn't a source either. It's some guy's guess as to what women's bra sizes are. Linda never gave her measurements out to anybody. That's another falsehood you've propagated. Brinkster100 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that actually. Measurements should probably be removed. Happy to do that. Driftingdrifting (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brinkster100 done. removed measurements.

I'm not (and nobody else is either) trying to fight with you on this stuff. Have a conversation with us, there are proper ways to get accomplished what you want. Driftingdrifting (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you want a published source on her height, the May 23, 1983 issue of Sports Illustrated features an article on Linda by Bob Ottum called From a Vamp to a Veep in which he gives the following statement: "The word Junoesque doesn't apply--Linda is only 5'6" and 125 pounds or so." Brinkster100 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're content with misrepresenting, or better yet, lying about her age? Then I'll keep changing the date to the correct one if you change back. Brinkster100 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors (read, not me) have already disagreed with your change. That means that you need to take it to the talk page, not just force through what you want. Things need to be verifiable, I have no way of knowing that is really her facebook, and conversations that *you* had can't be verified by other authors.

re. the height thing. Congrats, you found a source that supports the change you want to make. Actually cite that article when you update the height info and you should be good. Driftingdrifting (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would know if you bothered to spend two minutes to look. That is Linda's sole social media presence on the Internet. And it is unfathomable how dense you're being about maintaining that August 11 is really her birthday. But suit yourself. It's people like you that refuse to do any actual digging for the truth or a little bit of research that are the reason Wikipedia is about the least credible source of information you can find anywhere. It's also why there are so many ill-informed people walking around. Good job! Brinkster100 (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brinkster100 Your experience on wikipedia is going to be a lot more productive (and pleasant) if you approach editing with a more collaborative spirit (and less finger pointing). If you work with me (and other editors) we can get closer to the outcome that you want.

On the age. All reputable/semi-reputable sources that I can find would put her birth year either in 1983 or 1984. For example, this autoweek article has her at 78 in March of 2022. IMO there's no good reason to keep the August 11 bit if you want to remove that, but there are no reputable sources that support her birthdate being 1982. The things on wikipedia need to be verifiable. Facebook isn't verifiable. Driftingdrifting (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Driftingdrifting. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin) and Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! CoconutOctopus talk 11:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving conversation

Continuing discussion on speedy delete nom for Lenin Chávez El Chicheritos userpage:

Thanks for checking. I wasn't aware that non-admins could not see the deleted history notes.
Essentially, not much as changed on the userpage, except improved formatting. Same "autobiography". Feel free to tag again.
Too often, it is the case that user's continually recreate speedy deleted user pages, ignoring the warning messages.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my education (I'm newish), at what point would that tip over to something that would warrant an IP-report or I guess protect request or something? It doesn't quite seem to fit into any of the categories super neatly, but also it seems like having admins having to take the time to delete this on the daily would get disruptive at some point. This one doesn't seem particularly egregious, but you do sometimes see more blatant advertising or BLP cases so I'd like to understand the process. Driftingdrifting (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is re-created 3x in 24 hours, the WP:3RR rule could be invoked to block the editor (temporarily or indefinitely, depending on the circumstances). If the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, then escalating makes sense.

Another option, if a new editor is creating an "article" on their userpage, while it could be deleted on WP:U5, it might merit moving it to draft space, or to the user's sandbox. If it is an autobiography, I likely would delete, considering Wikipedia's stance on autobiographies; likewise, for a purely promotional page that doesn't look like the subject would pass notability guidelines.

There are a some standard warning templates available to inform an editor in more detail about issues.

As you are a relatively new editor, I recommend that you take time to work on improving articles on a topic(s) that interest you, in addition to "patrolling".

— ERcheck (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call. I absolutely do have some meaningful article improvement changes in my history, but it's certainly at a slower rate and not as frequent since tends to be when I see something or have dedicated time so it is probably a bit buried. Vandalism reverts has been a fairly enjoyable and low time commitment activity, but I'll make a point to make some more dedicated time to spend longer with some articles. Driftingdrifting (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poleskie

how is my edit "advertising various auction sites" specificially how is it "advertising" and how is it "various" 38.145.157.105 (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the references appear to go to sources where you could purchase his work, it's not clear how the article overall is enhanced by that. Regardless, it doesn't seem to fit into the section that previously described his death. I'm not exactly sure where it fits (or if it fits, imo, it really doesn't add to the article and a very similar change has been reverted twice by different editors). Really recommend taking it to the talk page for the article and building some consensus Talk:Steve Poleskie Driftingdrifting (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.145.157.105 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of transparency, I'm using a tool called redwarn, the relevant section is here. Wikipedia:RedWarn#A disclaimer regarding rollback which has slightly different guidance. I explained why I had reverted (and you are correct, only one of the links still has active sale links, although I stand by the promotional aspect). You are of course welcome to move forward with your changes (which you did, and I appreciate the added section). Happy editing. Driftingdrifting (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. obviously i am new at wiki (but very familiar with poleskie's career and ongoing legacy). your recommendation re: new section was appreciated. fyi, the reason my earlier additions were deleted was because they were improperly cited; i trust they are ok now. Dearwhere (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wonders of wikipedia are that they can always be edited by someone else later, but there's certainly not anything that I personally would revert now now. I could probably quibble on a few things (e.g. sources should usually be reputable third party sources (think newspapers, and the like)), but I'll leave that to future editors who know this topic area better and can weight that sort of thing. @Dearwhere Welcome to wikipedia! genuinely thank you for taking the time to make changes and move everything forward. Driftingdrifting (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Conversation re. Rouzbeh Yassini

I am editing the following page and I need time to add citation and references. The question is: why you removed a lot of information already cited with strong references from the page? at least resotre the page to its earlier state before my edition!

Remember, Rouzbeh Yassini is the man that every one on the planet and every organization including wikipedia indebted to him, his access to the broadband. Without broadband the wikipedia would've not existed nor you editors had access to always on highspeed internet to be able to remove information from his page!!!

Instead of pushing that delete botton go and do some search on the web to see that information provided are authentic and valid, if not interested to contribute to the page!!!

wikipapge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouzbeh_Yassini Angel21022014 (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos and interviews and self-published materials are not reputable sources. Driftingdrifting (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is also not the right place to leave a comment on a talk thread. If you want to start a topic, do it at the bottom, not as part of the first topic on the page.~~ edit: topic has now been moved to the right place. Driftingdrifting (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Angel21022014 I started a thread on the article talk page, I'm going to respond your question about my edits there. Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

$Salvio giuliano$ 09:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back

Your edit on Swatantra dev singh wikipedia vandalised by someone he is removing the corruption article from his page change it with fake good postive PR please revert it or correct 139.5.242.185 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like to make a bot which auto archives messages every month or so, how would I be able to do that, or could someone else do that for me? shane (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorShane3456 This is possible Help:Archiving_a_talk_page but I haven't done it, and I don't know how off hand to do it. Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Saletan

@Driftingdrifting I see you have removed death information from the infobox in the Tony Saletan article as possible vandalism, and I can see where you would suspect that. I have been a consistent editor on that article, adding many sources, and I know from the family that Tony died on August 26, 2025, in Tacoma after suffering for some years from Alzheimers. At this point there is not yet a reliable source, but there will be very soon as he is certainly an obituary-worthy subject. I have added the death information to the article and short description in anticipation of adding WP:RS asap, although I was not the one who tried to add it to the infobox. How can the correct information also be included in the infobox? PDGPA (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PDGPA unfortunately by waiting until there is a reputable source that publishes it. *maybe* in this case verified social media would be ok if there's been something mentioned there? I know its super frustrating, but we can't really use first hand information (like stuff you know from the family) because its not generally verifiable by other editors. If you knew the family/or subject, I'm sorry for your(their?) loss. Driftingdrifting (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend is not letting it go

If you get any noticeboard notifications this and this is why. But since I'm the one doing the hatting, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Xan747 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan747. Thanks for the head's up, I'll keep an eye out for it if it comes in, but do give me a ping if it does happen since I might not be automatically notified. They were talking about about starting an ANI 15 days ago and didn't, but I'm roughly zero percent worried here regardless, the talk page largely speaks for itself. Driftingdrifting (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked for making legal threats. Xan747 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it this morning, was in the process of drafting an ANI submission before MField beat me to it. I may try to clean it up a bit and do the same as you in attaching to the admin comment. I think there's a pretty clear case that the editor in question here wasn't operating in good faith or here to build an encyclopedia. We both gave them numerous opportunities to engage in the normal article building process, and to collaboratively edit and they chose to continue to escalate the accusations. Driftingdrifting (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such a shame. I was genuinely willing to work with them on adding back reliably-sourced material. But now, meh. I also closed the article talk page discussion with a note the editor had been blocked for the threats so anyone else who chances by knows it's been dealt with. Xan747 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I've been down all along for us to reintroduce well sourced material, the page has potential if the sources can support it (and its due), but that wasn't the conversation they seemed to want to have. When I get some time, I'll try to get back into this article now that all the oxygen in the room isn't getting pulled into these meta discussions. Driftingdrifting (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

test edit