User talk:Glman

Archives

Question about deleting edits

Hello Glman, A few days ago, you removed some of my edits on the articles: Antisemitism in Europe, Poway synagogue shooting, and Simon of Trent. As I am new to Wikipedia, I would like to learn from my mistakes and understand the reasons for these deletions. Could you kindly explain why my edits were removed? Thank you for your time and assistance. HillelAmadeus

Detroit edit reversal

I don't understand why the edit was reversed, the links are to topics directly relating to the main article, also you removed valid hyperlinks that were not included previously. User:ChuckDabs (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChuckDabs! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. glman (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Glman, pure accident regarding it being a "minor edit" tagged edit, I have made a decent amount of edits today. Thank you for your response, in the reversal I removed that! User:ChuckDabs (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 NASCAR Xfinity Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UM "update record"

You incremented Sherrone Moore's record but left all-time wins the same. Is it 1005, or 1006? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 1005 - Moore's record hadn't been updated. glman (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Thanks for keeping an eye on edits and reaching out! glman (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NCAA Division II football win–loss records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anderson University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reverse my edit on the Miami page?

Why does Wikipedia need to say "Asian and Pacific Islander"? Why not just "Asian"? The U.S. census doesn't use that category anymore. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Gameday

Thank you for agreeing with my suggestion to separate the list of locations into a separate article, which I have now done. Do you think there is a shout for further sub-articles, such as a separate article about the celebrity guest pickers? Rillington (talk) 09:41, 20 October 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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Series versus season

I noticed that you have reverted my changes of "series" to "season" in the Hotel Portofino article, with the short statement that "UK shows use "series"". However, that isn't true anymore. In the UK, "season" is increasingly being used as a term for a series within a series, the same way it is being used in the US, as it leads to less confusion. Two of the six main broadcasters, Sky and 5 consistently use "season" instead of "series" and several newspapers and magazines have begun to do the same.

The Hotel Portofino article contained a mix, i.e. both "season", and "series" were being used, which was why I decided, for consistency, to change all instances of "first series", "second series" and "third series" to "first season", "second season" and "third season". After your revert, you may notice that there are still six instances of "season" in the article, whereof three in the intro - and they have been there since the beginning.

Just for fun, I googled "series vs season" and found several heated discussions on the subject between Brits, but they were all from the early 2000s. However, I could find no such debates after 2018, which to me indicates that most people aren't very bothered about it anymore. In the debates I found, the only arguments for using "series" instead of "season" was that "this is how we do it in the UK" and "season is an Americanism", while those arguing for "season" felt that there is a need to distinguish between a series as a whole and separate runs within that series where the episode count goes back to one - and "season" is the best expression for that. I agree.

British English is evolving and American words and expressions are creeping in. Some of this I'm sad to see, like "lorry" increasingly being replaced by "truck" (which to most Brits still mean a forklift truck), or that parts of the UK real estate industry is trying to replace "flat and "terraced house" with "apartment" and "townhouse" because they think it sounds "cooler", but "season" is a word I think is needed in the British TV series world, just as Britain needs the word "vacation", to separate personal "holidays" from public "holidays".

Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of HYAK Motorsports

A tag has been placed on HYAK Motorsports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sandcat555 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flag template edit reversal

I'm not sure why you have reversed several of my edits concerning the flag template in human settlement infoboxes. U.S. county articles use both the U.S. flag and their respective state flag in their infoboxes. Why are towns/cities/unincorporated communities not allowed to have their respective state flag template? Palmetto252 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Palmetto252 Hey there! I left a note on your talk page linking the policy. Not mine, but the guideline nonetheless. glman (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JTG Daugherty Racing Page Move

Hi, a second requested move discussion to move JTG Daugherty Racing to Hyak Motorsports was added recently. I'm the only one that posted a response, so if you'd like to post one to speed up the discussion, then feel free to do so. Thanks, SteeledDock541 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on NCAA Division II football win–loss records

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NCAA Division II football win–loss records, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on NCAA Division III football win–loss records

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NCAA Division III football win–loss records, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NGCrusaders 2022.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NGCrusaders 2022.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:North Greenville Uni logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:North Greenville Uni logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Newberry College.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Newberry College.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Wingate University.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Wingate University.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non free content

Hello;

regarding this edit where you restored a non-free image to replace an identical free logo from Commons, please take into account the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria guide (which I was based on).

The NFCC police #1 clearly states: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" therefore your webp image is not necessary in this case. Fma12 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UVA Wise Logo 2023.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UVA Wise Logo 2023.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora, Colorado

I removed the Notable people list from the Aurora, Colorado article because putting a few notables on a pedestal is subjective. While there are certain people, for example, a president of the United States, who would meet this criteria as being among the most notable it becomes quickly much less obvious. Having two seperate lists with one having just a few notables on the main article encourages omitting notables from the standalone article and emphasizing certain people for purely subjective purposes. Do you believe that the current list of notable people on the Aurora, Colorado is truly representative of the most notable people from the city?

Anyway, I added Danny Dietz, Michaela Onyenwere, and Michael Carter to the standalone article, who were on the main article but missing from the standalone article. Raskuly (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR Hall of Fame Inductees

I just wanted to say I'm not thrilled you got rid of all the stuff I put into that page over the years. I was managing that page for a long time, and saying you standarized it is annoying. Thanks a lot. /s. Dman6233 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to annoy! Haha, I hope you're okay with the edits seriously. I tried to maintain all info - I think I only removed the track wins leadership. glman (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coke 600 veteran names

hi glman, happy greatest day in racing. I know i can be bold with this, but for the coke 600, i was thinking I could add the names of the service member on the windshield to their respective driver. i just wanted to get your input on this and how you think it would be, similarly to the darlington throwback race. 45BearsFan (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Stadium (Shreveport)

I don't understand why my edit was reverted, all I tried to do was improve the page, including adding proper sections, and basically make it more like most other pages for major college football bowl game stadiums. 2601:18F:283:5800:5569:69C5:69B3:B512 (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, can you at least provide a reason for my reverted edit on the Vols football article? Sports Reference is generally an accepted external link that provides useful information not covered in the article. Red Director (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I don't see any value in linking to external source here. We cover the same information as linked at List of Tennessee Volunteers football seasons. glman (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I needed! Thanks for the information. Red Director (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Daytona Logo 2025.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Daytona Logo 2025.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 09:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page

Please see Talk:Nashville, Tennessee. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put everything - content and old and new citations - into one long paragraph. I hope that's satisfactory. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-12 Conference

"discuss on talk"

I didn't see anything, so coming here. Was there a message on a talk page I missed, apologies. Pac-12 Conference GenericCacti (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Race track abbreviations

Hi, we are attempting to standardize these abbreviations across articles, not just IndyCar. Please do not undo these edits. Thanks. Electricmemory (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the majority of other NASCAR articles already use MOH, which I changed Edwards and Gordons' tables to. Electricmemory (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Cale Yarbourough's '79 Make

I just want to say that both on Cale's wikipedia page and on racing refrence it is shown that Cale did infact drive a chevy in 11 of the 31 races. Sorry if I caused you any trouble. 32.214.48.104 (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Glman. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikibirthday!

drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 15:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 167.98.155.186 (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 05:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baton Rouge Pronunciation

Hello! I come to hopefully find some middle ground on this disagreement. I removed the audio mainly because it was the French pronunciation, which is uncommon to hear in the US, as well as this being the English Wikipedia. I do appreciate hearing your view further on this, though. 2600:100A:B0EA:1B09:28F6:F562:B735:5934 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation is listed as a part of the French section of the name - not the main one. glman (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"French: Bâton-Rouge, pronounced [bɑtɔ̃ ʁuʒ]" - it's how to pronounce the French. glman (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have any problem with the IPA in french listed tbh, its only the audio that im confused as to why its there. 2600:100A:B0EA:1B09:28F6:F562:B735:5934 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the audio should be pronouncing it in English since this is the English wikipedia.

Take for example, Coeur d'Alene. The French IPA is listed, but the article's audio has the English pronunciatio and not the French. So why are Louisiana, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge exceptions to this? 2600:100A:B0EA:1B09:28F6:F562:B735:5934 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:100A:B0EA:1B09:28F6:F562:B735:5934 Because a user has to record and upload the recording. If you'd like to do so, I'm sure it would be appreciated! glman (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ill have to figure out how to, yea. While I can do editing, commands like adding audio files im not keen on....yet. Ill do some digging 2600:100A:B0EA:1B09:28F6:F562:B735:5934 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision.

Hi Glman, thanks for your polite revision comment. I posted about it on the talk page. However, another user already accepted my revision—why did you undo it? Are you knowledgeable on the subject? Vulturdactyl (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"2026 NASCAR Cup Series" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2026 NASCAR Cup Series 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/2025 August 2 § 2026 NASCAR Cup Series until a consensus is reached. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Your input is needed concerning your past reprimand of user Magnolia677

I have been made aware of a reprimand you posted on Magnolia677's talk page last month about the user's blatant misuse & misinterpretation of WP:USCITIES as a WikiProject guideline instead of a Wikipedia guideline.

There is a discussion currently going on at the talk page for the Homer Glen article concerning Magnolia677 once again blatantly misusing & misinterpreting WP:USCITIES to justify information about Homer Glen's government being removed.

I would appreciate your help! ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I decided to close the argument & simply wait some time in the hopes that the three idiot editors will have eventually forgotten about the Homer Glen article, then I'll proceed to re-insert the information that was wrongly removed by Magnolia. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my edits to Airbnb corporate page

I understand if you take issue with a specific sentence, or wording, but to undo ALL of my edits is entirely inappropriate and disrespectful of the time I invested. Who exactly do you think you are? Jjj3190 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JJJ, I believe your edits good faith, but multiple areas of your edit changes neutral sentences (i.e. "Airbnb has been accused of..." to "Airbnb has done x"). We are editors. This is a part of editing on Wikipedia - the WP:BRD cycle. Let's discuss your proposed changes on the talk page with other editors and then see what consensus is. glman (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello,

I’m glad you acknowledged my edit was made in good faith. That recognition matters, but so does the time and care I put into it. I have to be honest—seeing the entire contribution reverted without distinction was disheartening. This wasn’t a quick tweak; it was a multifaceted, carefully sourced effort that took hours to research, write, and format.

Wikipedia’s reverting policy doesn’t just allow partial reverts—it strongly encourages them when only part of an edit is disputed. The expectation is that editors engage with the substance of a contribution, not erase it wholesale unless it’s clearly disruptive or unsalvageable. That’s not just policy—it’s the spirit of collaboration that keeps Wikipedia alive.

I’m asking, respectfully, that you go through the content line by line and preserve what’s worth keeping. If that feels like too much work, I understand—but in that case, I’d suggest stepping back and letting someone else take over. Because throwing away good-faith, policy-aligned work isn’t just unfair, it’s contrary to what this platform stands for.

I’m open to revising anything that doesn’t meet standards. But I’d like to see the same level of care given to evaluating the work as I gave to creating it.

Jjj3190 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is being sought...

Considering the comment you left at the ANI discussion about me as it concerns Magnolia677's stance on WikiProject guideline & its application site-wide, I am requesting that you join a WikiProject discussion about the same issue. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions

I noticed you removed my short description addition at Numerai. All pages should have one (and we're 90% there), and I'd like to know why you reverted it. See Wikipedia:Short description. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sammi! My apologies, when going down my watchlist it appeared that a short description had been revised, upon review, the previous SD was just the one pulled from WikiData - my bad! glman (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption of RfC and Procedural interference at Talk:Airbnb

Jjj3190 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a collaborative approach on recent reverts

Hello Glman,

I'm writing to you directly in hopes of finding some common ground regarding my edits that you reverted across several articles today. I'm starting this discussion here first, as a matter of courtesy, before moving to the individual article talk pages if needed.

I understand that my account is recent, which can naturally invite extra scrutiny, and I welcome that as part of the process. However, I believe that the health of the encyclopedia depends on judging contributions based on their content and sources, not on the age of an editor's account. My goal is to be a long-term, constructive contributor here, and I'm keen to follow the best practices to do so.

In that spirit, I'd like to clarify the intent behind my edits, which I believe was misunderstood.

On the Microsoft 365 article, for example, the revert summary noted "mass removals of content." My intention was to improve the article by streamlining an overly detailed section, which is a standard practice outlined in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This process can result in a negative byte count, but the goal is to improve the article's quality and focus, not to degrade it.

Across all the reverts, a significant amount of new, reliably sourced information was also removed. To ensure this is all handled collaboratively, I have started discussions on the talk pages for each of the articles in question. This will allow us to review the edits—both the new additions and the streamlining—piece by piece.

I genuinely believe we can find a consensus on those pages that improves them for all readers. I would appreciate your input there when you have a moment.

Thank you, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjan, do you use an LLM to edit your comments or edits? It appears that you do. glman (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your comments on your draft page that you are using AI tools. Please review WP:LLM. ANY use of generative AI text is not permitted on Wikipedia. glman (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glman,

Thank you for your candid question. You are correct; I have been using AI tools to assist with some of my edits and comments. My apologies if this was not sufficiently clear from my user page.

I'm keen to ensure my contributions adhere to Wikipedia's high standards. I've been using AI tools primarily for copyediting, grammar, and refining the tone of my summaries and talk page comments. My goal is to make my contributions as professional and clear as possible, which I believe is helpful for other editors.

Crucially, the factual content and sources in my edits are the result of my own research and verification. The AI tools are not used to generate content or citations. I have personally confirmed that all sources I've added are reliable and that the information they support is accurate, adhering to WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. I'm aware that using an LLM to generate content from scratch is equivalent to creating original research and can lead to fabricated information or citations, which I have avoided.

Please note, the edits and their citations were hours of work, and if you take a closer look, they are almost always from top publications or authoritative sources. Would it help if they were piecemeal and in simple English instead?

I hope we can move past this procedural discussion and focus on the substance of the edits. I genuinely believe my changes were a net positive for the articles, and I would appreciate your input on the article talk pages I've already opened, where we can discuss the changes piece by piece. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Niranjan Ramamurthy No, LLM use is not acceptable at all per WP:LLM. glman (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Glman - It says right there on WP:LLM that it's fine to use AI tools for copy editing. Generally the way an encyclopedia is written, unlike a blog post or a journalistic article, it does require some verbiage alteration and language polish. Wiki text with citations are another thing altogether. Heaven forbid, there's a spelling mistake in there making the article look unprofessional and distracting.

I'm aware of the main concerns with hallucinations and bias - I am gen AI certified, so I know the information that's usually updated in my edits are from authoritative sources, written in a NPOV, and clearly says what I want to say, as opposed to let an LLM generate an essay out of thin air.

Again, I suggest you look at the actual edits, it's sources and the placements before reverting. Otherwise it's just the Wiki that's missing out.

I have nothing to gain or lose, and I'm only here to contribute in any way I can.

Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Niranjan Ramamurthy You need to reread WP:LLM. You have not been disclosing your LLM use in every edit summary, you have been generating talk page messages, and your edits have been intorducing WP:POV and WP:PROMO issues, which is common for LLM generated text. I have reviewed every edit before reverting, as is common with the WP:BRD cycle. I would be happy to see you contribute. Why don't you do so without the use of Chat bots? You can discuss on talk pages and we can refine grammar without any LLM use. glman (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Glman, thanks for pointing it out. I din't think it was necessary to mention that an AI was used to double check the grammar and tone, in every edit summary, however, I'll make sure I do that going forward - if and when I do make further edits.

Regarding the edit you've reverted as WP:PROMO, it was an incremental one to mention the financials and awards. If you scroll to the previous edit made minutes ago to the same article, it spoke about the rape and murder of an employee. How is that promotional or biased, when it's just significant news that changed the industry after that?

Another revert for GoDaddy is of their practices that were publicly criticised by top publications, which small businesses and nonprofits need to be aware of, like free SSLs. Now that you've reverted it, they'll never know, would they?

Take George Michael - one of his philanthropic initiatives were to offer free concerts to nurses. If I didn't mention it with citations, this encyclopedia is not complete. That comes under bias by omission.

If there's a minor detail like an LLM disclosure for copyediting, a Talk page message might have been easier than erasing hours of meticulous work put in. I'll repeat for the 3rd time - the edits are my own and not the opinion of an LLM's. I'm fully responsible for them and there are citations to back them up.

However, I'm just debating here and appreciate you pointing out best practices. I've taken it in stride looking at the bigger picture. This only helps me refine my future approach, if any. Thanks again! Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nascar generic names

yo, per this discussion nearly a year ago, i think it's safe to say option B was the clear winner, therefore, i've started updated truck names with "craftsman truck at (track name)", however, i've noticed that you reverted one about north wilkesboro's (and i just found out it's better to have a discussion than being bold about it, and i added "motor speedway" to about half of the track names) is it still safe to say I can add "motor speedway/raceway" to the title? 45BearsFan (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Per that discussion, we clarified that it was not binding, and should be discussed at least informally before each move. glman (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i see, what should i do for races like the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series at St. Petersburg, should i do it like how we did the san diego race "at the coronado street course" or should i just leave it, i'd like to have consitence with the truck names with having the track name in too. 45BearsFan (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Liberty University, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not template me for content issue. This reversion was absolutely constructive in restoring this to a stable version. glman (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elite university? Has Wikipedia become Encyclopedia Dramatica? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've rolled back to an even older version. The version you restored still included "Southern Baptist Conservatives" and was missing part of the lead summarizing the article and the version I did still had promo issues. Let's both WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH here. glman (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:American Baptist College Nashville Seal.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Baptist College Nashville Seal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switchfoot, reversal of edits

Just wondering why my edits were removed? You've then cited 'no source' yet no source is given as to why incorrect information is on the page... If you can't provide a source why do I have to? Best Regards Tofik06 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we rely on sources - and I can only respond to current edits. Two wrongs don't make a right edit - we can fully remove all the details if both are unsourced. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. glman (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and reply, much appreciated. Yes, agreed, will keep that in mind. Thanks again. Tofik06 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 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) 00:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boots Christopher Ake removal

A few months ago, I saw that my song "Boots" was in the notable recordings tab on the boots poem page. I recently checked again, and it said you removed it for it being not notable. I think my song is notable enough to be included in that section. It has nearly 2 million streams across all platforms. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to re-add it myself. Please, consider adding it back to the page. Thank you for taking my concern into consideration. Christopher Ake (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please review WP:N. Notability on Wikipedia requires outside, independent coverage of the subject. I'm sure your recording is amazing! glman (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but if I'm understanding your concern correctly, I have had independent coverage of myself and my music via radio stations and news outlets. Christopher Ake (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also read through the notability page and even if I didn't have any articles, it would not HAVE to be deleted. Christopher Ake (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]