User talk:Ermenrich

My Talk Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Moses Edit War

It is kinda jarring, but here we go again: What do you expect to happen, when users ignore a point brought forth for weeks?

I was not able to login for a while, however, managed to explain my objections and yet within four weeks neither you nor the Mike-User managed to reply? Do you two want to prevent consensus by ignorign the talkpage? Thats not how thigns work. If you do not even know what I meant by discussion, I must assume you have not even read and just ignore every messsage to keep status quo. I would be fine with that, if it wasn't blatant misinformation or misleading content we are disputing about.

That being said, I hope we can find a dispute resolution here, but I am tired of pointless edit wars where Users refuse to engage in a proper discussion on a talkpage and just attack another as if this is a social media platform about getting likes or views. If there won't be a civil dispute, I will report the Mike guy, and if necessary also drag you with it, if your behavior is the same as theirs. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to whatever specific talk page discussions you are talking about. What I see at Talk:Moses is several people disagreeing with you and thus WP:NOCONSENSUS. It is also very difficult to follow your lengthy and meandering posts.Ermenrich (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro...

That paragraph is literally AI generated, it even has an em dash. Maybe actually read edit summarizes before you go around blindly reverting supposed "vandalism" just because it came from an IP editor. 2607:FEA8:86DF:FD5C:39B8:2591:FB59:EE86 (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Even if it were AI, it’s academically supported content.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says there's an 100 chance it's AI generated. Stop trying to exclude IP editors from participation. 2607:FEA8:86DF:FD5C:39B8:2591:FB59:EE86 (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

…says you, who disagrees with it.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with the fact that it's AI generated. Also you can check for yourself if you distrust me so much. 2607:FEA8:86DF:FD5C:39B8:2591:FB59:EE86 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Ostrogoths. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Sunmist (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m reverting WP:VANDALISM which is exempt from WP:3RR - or are you telling me anyone can just show up and claim something is AI if they don’t like it?—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure they're correct about it being LLM-generated, but they are articulating a reason for removing the section, and they appear to be acting in good-faith. Both of you should open a dialog on the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting each other. Sunmist (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that their initial edit summary said they thought the information was wrong and what the Information was, color me skeptical that they are acting in good faith.—-Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm essentially being forced to waste my time on a bogus claim of AI use by a random IP that was almost certainly made with ulterior motives (probably to create just the situation where people would be forced to waste time disproving it!).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM disclosure

Hello there. Have you been using an LLM for your edits here on Wikipedia recently? If so, could tou WP:LLMDISCLOSE:

What tool(s) you are using, and which versions.
What prompts, features, etc that you are using.
What review, if any, you are doing of the LLM generated output text.

Thank you, Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, and I now see that the contested text on Ostrogoths was originally added in Diff/1319332112, which wasn't done by you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn: It was actually added here. I highly doubt this is AI.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, I didn't see that because I was looking for edits that added exactly 953 bytes. And I agree, I doubt that this text was generated by an LLM, the only WP:AISIGNS there is using the wrong MOS:CQ (but they have been fixed at some point now). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I want to apologize to you for the question about LLM use here, while I doubted that it was LLM generated myself, simply asking can sometimes reveal surprising answers. I was somehow under the impression that you had originally added the text, and had also noticed you using an ellipsis unicode character earlier (which isn't any sort of "proof" anymore than em-dashes or curly quotes, and this is coming from a previously-habitual user of the em-dash). Just to be clear, I don't think that you have been using an LLM on Wikipedia, and I certainly don't want to "accuse" of that either. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The ellipses is because I was replying on my phone.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mine does that too, and uses curly quotes. I can't figure out how to disable it. Makes it so tedious to type anything on it... --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyksos

Moved to Talk:Hyksos

A kitten for you!

I saw that you've dealt with a lot of harassment recently. Here's a kitten to cheer you up!

QuicoleJR (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks QuicoleJR! I appreciate it!--Ermenrich (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]