User talk:Louiskk23

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Hello

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you're removing sections of your sandbox bit by bit every 30 seconds or so -- 171 edits so far -- and I'm curious what's going on? --tony 01:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: I appreciate your notice. I'm currently running tests in my sandbox (user workshop), as I'm more familiar with Spanish Wikipedia and am adjusting to the English version. These are minor valid edits for practice, which shouldn't be an issue. Thank you for your understanding. Louiskk23 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Louiskk23, you appear to be making hundreds of relatively trivial edits to articles in draft space. While the changes do fix common typos, their rapidity, specificity (you’re correcting the same three or four misspellings), and location in draft space is curious. Is there a reason you made so many of these edits in such a short period of time? Celjski Grad (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your message. I hope you are doing well.
I understand your curiosity. I had explained this previously to another admin, as I was also active on the Spanish Wikipedia where I used the replacer tool to fix common spelling errors. I was told there is no edit limit on Wikipedia, and I don't see anything wrong with correcting these mistakes I believe every bit helps improve the project.
Since I don't want to accidentally cause any harm to mainspace articles, I focused on fixing minor orthographic errors while I continue to learn more about Wikipedia's policies every day. I truly don't understand why it causes concern or alarm; I simply had some free time and wanted to contribute in a positive and safe way.
My goal is to keep learning and improving so that I can eventually contribute in more significant ways without risking damage to articles. Thank you for your understanding.
Best regards. Louiskk23 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Untamed1910 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]
A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome!

Hello, Louiskk23, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, apologies for assuming you were a vandal at first. As Meters said in the ANI thread, there is no limit to the number of edits. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please stop removing red links and read WP:REDDEAL. I've reverted your edits that have removed them in error. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celjski Grad (talk · contribs).I noticed you have reverted several of my edits. My edits involved removing hyperlinks that were pointing to non-existent pages (redlinks).
As per Wikipedia's manual of style, creating links to non-existent articles is generally discouraged unless the article is likely to be created soon. The purpose of my edits was to clean up the articles and improve the user experience by following this guideline.
Since you reverted these changes, could you please explain your reasoning? I would like to understand if there is a specific policy or consensus I'm missing. For example, are these redlinks part of an approved project or deemed likely to be created shortly?
I believe my edits were constructive and in line with Wikipedia's standards. If we have a differing interpretation of the guidelines, I would like to discuss it to find a consensus. If we cannot agree, I may seek further input from the community at a noticeboard.
Thank you for your time and for your contributions to Wikipedia.
--Louiskk23 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not respond using an AI chatbot, and read the wikipedia policy I linked above, as it explains the purpose of red links and why they are not errors. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid article editing

[edit]

Can you explain how you were able to make extensive changes with many of your last 30 edits in the span of minutes, including:

Further, how does removing 85% of Draft:Duplomb Law and 75% of Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film) improve those articles (per your edit summary)?

Celjski Grad (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Celjski Grad for your two questions re my Draft of All the President's Elephants (Film) page and the seemingly excessive editing of it recently done by Louiskk23. I have written on my Talk Page re this, and also copied those same concerns/comments to the Teahouse. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor/creator, and would appreciate some input, fixes and 'undos', if deemed necessary, by experienced well-regarded Wikipedia editors. I do feel your editing to this All the President's Elephants (Film) page was very heavy handed I'm afraid Louiskk23. WikiAdd01 (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll respond to you here as well, just as I responded to you at the tea house.)
Hello, I hope you are well. Before stating my point, I would like to say that I have nothing against your article or you personally. On the contrary, I found the subject of the documentary very interesting. Although I agree that my editing was drastic, I modified text that I felt was excessive and contained unnecessary praise. as well as being redundant. What I did was try to make the article more neutral so that the format would better comply with Wikipedia guidelines and thus support its approval. If you look, two experienced editors edited your article after this, one of them removed a large part of the article that, in my opinion, was unnecessary and not very neutral. Furthermore, another editor commented that there is no mention of the documentary in two references you added. Similarly, I promise not to edit that draft anymore, but instead to let the more experienced editors do what they think is best.
I would also like to say that I have been suffering what I consider to be “harassment” from the editor Celjski Grad. At first, I made a mistake and the problem was solved on the librarians' board by clarifying the confusion, but since then I can't make any edits without Celjski Grad harassing me. Even when I corrected simple spelling mistakes, he harassed me and wrote to me. When I make edits in my sandbox, he harasses me. When I improve syntax, he writes to me too. Although I agree that the edit to the documentary was drastic, the other edits were simpler. In fact, I had to write the text and modify it in a Word file instead of in my sandbox because I was afraid that the user Celjski Grad would also complain about me editing in my sandbox, so I thought, “If I do it in a separate notepad and then paste my edit without using my sandbox, the user will probably be calmer.” But even that didn't save me from harassment by this user. I had already made my last edits in a Word file, which is why it seemed like I did them “quickly.” Louiskk23 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Louiskk23, all of your edits have been suspicious: hundreds of nonsensical sandbox edits in one sitting followed by hundreds of minor spelling corrections in one sitting, followed by rapid and extensive edits of articles in one sitting — most likely with the help of LLM, all leading up to 501 edits: exactly one greater than needed for WP:ECP rights. Please see WP:DUCK. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I understand that you don't have bad intentions, but rather that you are trying to prevent malicious actors on Wikipedia. The quick edits (of spelling mistakes) are because I looked for the least delicate way to help on Wikipedia, so I decided to start with spelling mistakes. I searched for specific mistakes in the bar and opened several articles with these mistakes on my phone, and I already had the correct word to fix it quickly. I come from Spanish Wikipedia, where I used the replace tool to quickly fix many spelling mistakes. I liked the idea and decided to support it this way.
You have also helped me with some good advice on how to avoid making mistakes, but I do feel somewhat pressured by you in a way, although I fully understand your concern. I acknowledge my mistakes and hope to learn even more from certain guidelines to improve my contributions. I would like to know:
Would there be a problem if I went back to fixing spelling mistakes?
For now, I will analyze my edits a little more, and I appreciate your concern. I hope to remain on good terms with you and avoid misunderstandings. Louiskk23 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as I mentioned and explained in the answer above, I did not make the specific edits during that period of time. In fact, as I clarified quite clearly above, I had already created and worked on those edits in my Word document, which is like my notepad. (I didn't want to use my sandbox because with your pressure you would harass me too), so I thought that if I pasted the edits directly, I wouldn't have a problem with you, but since I did it quickly (because I already had them in my Word file, done and worked on previously), you still assume bad faith, so my question is... Are you going to let me edit? The sandbox issue has already been resolved and clarified on the administrators' board, so that issue is now in the past and I haven't done it again, so tell me, can I edit Wikipedia?
If you suspect bad faith on my part, then I should have vandalized it, right?
As I said, I come from Spanish Wikipedia, and you can check that I have not committed any vandalism, so I ask you please not to persecute or harass me. You can see my edits, and if you consider that any of them were wrong, you are free to act. As I mentioned earlier, I understand that your actions are to protect Wikipedia from malicious actors, and obviously in the past I acted suspiciously, but that has already been resolved, so bringing up the old incident is like reopening a discussion that has already been closed. I ask you to please stop acting like a police officer with me and questioning even simple and valid edits.
I understand your concern, but you question me even if I put a comma. You can see the edits I make and advise me and point out the mistakes I make to help me improve, but there comes a point where I feel harassed by you.
I hope to resolve this satisfactorily, and as I asked you before, what edits can I make on Wikipedia? Am I prohibited from correcting simple spelling mistakes? Louiskk23 (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]