User talk:Fxmastermind

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


I practise the principle of ignore all rules

"To write in plain vigorous language one has to think fearlessly"
Fxmastermind (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

September 12 2022 - This is still true. Fxmastermind (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might exacerbate resentments all around.

I archived again

[edit]

and I didn't even ask for help. This means something has gone wrong, but nobody cares Fxmastermind (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"DDWFTTW cart" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect DDWFTTW cart has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § DDWFTTW cart until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Fxmastermind. Thank you for your work on HH 30. Another editor, Cremastra, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work.

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

Cremastra (u — c) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra:Not sure how this works, but it seems you sent a comment about an article I started in 2008. Fxmastermind (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, geez, sorry. Page Curation always sends the message to whoever created the page, not wrote the article. Should have gone to Meli thev. Cremastra (u — c) 12:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Fxmastermind (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom friction moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Bottom friction. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 16:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should have used the talk page. You interrupted the sources being added, as well as knowing why it was done. Not reading a talk page before editing is absurd. Are you actually a bot? Fxmastermind (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to revert from a draft Fxmastermind (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fxmastermind Instead of using links with the heading source ? Why not cite web ? I moved to draft before you added all that, you couldn’t even add a reference line for ur source ? No Inline citation? Is that how an article should be written? Let it be on the draft space where it can be improved please use Inline citation. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer is that I have quite forgotten almost all of my knowledge of tags and editing. Usually some other capable mind comes along and adds various templates and all the cool and fancy tags. A group effort if you will. Usually before I finish my basic efforts on the article.
I think making it a draft is preventing such an event at this time. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My fondest wish is that there were bots to do these things, rather than bots that tell me a source is no good, but not which source it is objecting to! Fxmastermind (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to at least show which statement depends on which source. Otherwise you're basically pointing to a bunch of books and saying "it's in there somewhere". DS (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic, since as I explained in multiple ways, that was what I was doing when the article vanished. Fxmastermind (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikuradse roughness moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Nikuradse roughness. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aesurias (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bottom friction (October 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Using an AI chatbot to create drafts risks hallucinations and wild inaccuracies. Please start this fro scratch, and rewrite it yourself. Not doing so is likely to result in rejection, whcih is a permanent state
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Fxmastermind! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Timtrent. An edit that you recently made to Draft:Bottom friction seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite interesting that unknown people on Wikipedia are using LLM tools to check articles. I've long suspected bot accounts and tools were the extensively used to patrol Wikipedia. Now I have no doubt LLM (AI chatbots) are also being used.
Fascinating. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you made 24 edits, including huge changes and major decisions about articles or users, in 10 minutes today. Timtrent appears to either be a bot, or is using machine tools to edit Wikipedia.
This is not an isolated event. You made over 600 edits in the last four days, with edits happening at rates of 5 per minute at times. That's not a human being doing that. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will either ignore or not respond to these observations. User Timtrent did 4,900 edits so far this month. Even a full time employee of Wikipedia would not be able to do that. Fascinating.
The lack of a human response to this will seal the deal. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a human response will be interesting. Your responses are machine generated. This is obvious from looking at your edit history. I don't need a chatbot to tell this. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
108 edits already today. It's a bot, or a bunch of bots. Fxmastermind (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]