User talk:Neutralwikifixer

Welcome!

Hello, Neutralwikifixer, 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.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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! E_F⁵ 13:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI usage

Using AI and LLMs on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. — E_F⁵ 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no rule against using tools like AI or LLMs, as long as the content follows Wikipedia’s core policies: verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. That simply means editors shouldn't include their own conclusions or interpretations — everything must be based on reliable, published sources. Whether the text was written with or without assistance isn’t the issue — the only thing that matters is whether it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Otherwise, would recording a text and having it transcribed by software also be considered “not allowed”? Or would a Spanish-speaking editor using Google Translate to write in English be disqualified? That’s just efficiency — not a violation of policy.

Ironically, the article itself leans heavily on an idea — “Dutch Caribbean” — that isn’t grounded in any legal or constitutional document. It reflects the interpretations or preferences of certain groups, not neutral, verifiable facts. That’s exactly the kind of original framing Wikipedia is supposed to avoid. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't neccessarily true - several people have been blocked before for using LLMs. As for would a Spanish-speaking editor using Google Translate to write in English be disqualified, that's different. You obviously aren't in trouble, I'm just letting you know because people have, and continue to, get into "trouble" (blocks for using large-language-models) before. — E_F⁵ 17:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the heads-up, but if you have something to say about the content of the article or its legitimacy, say it. Otherwise, you're sidestepping into procedural distractions.

Either get to the point or acknowledge that you have no rebuttal. Warnings about tools aren’t arguments. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On wanting me to acknowledge that you have no rebuttal, you're right, I don't. All I'm doing is letting you know that AI usage will likely end in trouble on your part, and I would hate to see an LLM-related block happen to another user (usually it's a competence-is-required issue, not conduct-related and is easy to avoid). I don't care about the Dutch Caribbean AfD, I'm genuinely reaching out because I have a concern. Assuming you've gotten the point, I will now disengage. Happy editing. :) — E_F⁵ 18:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

I am appealing this block. The block was placed by Voorts, who was involved in the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean and had previously interfered with a closure request I made at WP:AN.

My AfD nomination and later request were policy-based and civil. The article was contested and I raised valid encyclopedic concerns. The block appears retaliatory and conflicts with Wikipedia’s expectation that block actions should be made by uninvolved administrators.

I request review by an uninvolved admin. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are in the block notice. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neutralwikifixer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block was placed by Voorts, who was involved in the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean and had previously interfered with a closure request I made at WP:AN. My AfD nomination and later request were policy-based and civil. The article was contested and I raised valid encyclopedic concerns. The block appears retaliatory and conflicts with Wikipedia’s expectation that block actions should be made by uninvolved administrators. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You claim Voorts was involved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean (which was closed as Speedy/procedural keep, strongly indicating your nomination was inappropriate), but I see no edits to that page by Voorts. Perhaps this is not what you meant. You also provided no evidence that Voorts was involved at WP:AN but provided no evidence of this. The only interaction I saw at WP:AN was in the thread titled, "Request for closure of AfD: Dutch Caribbean", which certainly didn't make Voorts involved. Indeed, if that's what you are referring to, your accusation is blatantly bad faith. Yamla (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neutralwikifixer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand my previous unblock request was declined. I would like to clarify that my actions regarding the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean were made in good faith and followed the appropriate deletion process.

I nominated the article and later requested closure after 7 days, based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. I did not intend to be disruptive and now see how my approach may have been misinterpreted.

I’m committed to contributing constructively and respectfully. I ask for reconsideration of the block, and I’m open to any guidance to ensure future participation aligns with community standards. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You opened the AfD, which was closed as 'keep' in a matter of hours. Two days later you went and edited (!) the closed discussion. Then, two weeks after that, you went to AN and said the discussion has been open for 7 days and there is "consensus in favor of deletion", when it had been closed already and had clear consensus for keeping (2 x 'keep' + 2 x 'procedural keep'). And now you're trying to tell us all that was "in good faith and followed the appropriate deletion process"? Seriously? I don't know whether you genuinely believe that, in which case this raises major CIR red flags, or you're just trolling us, but either way it would seem unwise to lift this block. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Neutralwikifixer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’d like to respond directly and respectfully to the reasons given for this block and explain my intent as clearly as possible.

The summary states that I am “not here to build an encyclopedia.” I disagree with that characterization. My goal has always been to contribute to accurate, truthful, and policy-aligned articles. That’s why I participated in the AfD process for Dutch Caribbean — not to disrupt, but to raise content-based concerns in a constructive and structured way.

First, regarding my use of the phrase “consensus in favor of deletion”: I now recognize that this was incorrect. The AfD had already been closed as “keep” and included comments supporting that outcome. What I intended to express was that, during the open phase of the discussion, no policy-based objections had been made for several days. I understand that my wording gave the wrong impression, and I take responsibility for that.

Second, I edited the closed AfD discussion. I now realize that this is discouraged, regardless of intent. At the time, I didn’t know that editing closed discussions was considered improper, and I will not do so again.

Third, I want to clearly state that my involvement with the article Dutch Caribbean was driven by genuine concerns over its encyclopedic validity — particularly the use of problematic terminology. I believe the label itself introduces a lack of neutrality and obscures the distinct political and cultural identities of the islands. These concerns were raised in good faith and in alignment with Wikipedia’s core content policies: neutrality, verifiability, and structure.

I recognize that my phrasing and procedural choices may have caused confusion, and I’ve now taken steps to better understand what’s expected. I respectfully ask that this block be lifted so I can return to contributing constructively to Wikipedia’s mission. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I’d like to respond directly and respectfully to the reasons given for this block and explain my intent as clearly as possible.

The summary states that I am “not here to build an encyclopedia.” I disagree with that characterization. My goal has always been to contribute to accurate, truthful, and policy-aligned articles. That’s why I participated in the AfD process for [[Dutch Caribbean]] — not to disrupt, but to raise content-based concerns in a constructive and structured way.

First, regarding my use of the phrase “consensus in favor of deletion”: I now recognize that this was incorrect. The AfD had already been closed as “keep” and included comments supporting that outcome. What I intended to express was that, during the open phase of the discussion, no policy-based objections had been made for several days. I understand that my wording gave the wrong impression, and I take responsibility for that.

Second, I edited the closed AfD discussion. I now realize that this is discouraged, regardless of intent. At the time, I didn’t know that editing closed discussions was considered improper, and I will not do so again.

Third, I want to clearly state that my involvement with the article [[Dutch Caribbean]] was driven by genuine concerns over its encyclopedic validity — particularly the use of problematic terminology. I believe the label itself introduces a lack of neutrality and obscures the distinct political and cultural identities of the islands. These concerns were raised in good faith and in alignment with Wikipedia’s core content policies: neutrality, verifiability, and structure.

I recognize that my phrasing and procedural choices may have caused confusion, and I’ve now taken steps to better understand what’s expected. I respectfully ask that this block be lifted so I can return to contributing constructively to Wikipedia’s mission. [[User:Neutralwikifixer|Neutralwikifixer]] ([[User talk:Neutralwikifixer#top|talk]]) 16:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I’d like to respond directly and respectfully to the reasons given for this block and explain my intent as clearly as possible.

The summary states that I am “not here to build an encyclopedia.” I disagree with that characterization. My goal has always been to contribute to accurate, truthful, and policy-aligned articles. That’s why I participated in the AfD process for [[Dutch Caribbean]] — not to disrupt, but to raise content-based concerns in a constructive and structured way.

First, regarding my use of the phrase “consensus in favor of deletion”: I now recognize that this was incorrect. The AfD had already been closed as “keep” and included comments supporting that outcome. What I intended to express was that, during the open phase of the discussion, no policy-based objections had been made for several days. I understand that my wording gave the wrong impression, and I take responsibility for that.

Second, I edited the closed AfD discussion. I now realize that this is discouraged, regardless of intent. At the time, I didn’t know that editing closed discussions was considered improper, and I will not do so again.

Third, I want to clearly state that my involvement with the article [[Dutch Caribbean]] was driven by genuine concerns over its encyclopedic validity — particularly the use of problematic terminology. I believe the label itself introduces a lack of neutrality and obscures the distinct political and cultural identities of the islands. These concerns were raised in good faith and in alignment with Wikipedia’s core content policies: neutrality, verifiability, and structure.

I recognize that my phrasing and procedural choices may have caused confusion, and I’ve now taken steps to better understand what’s expected. I respectfully ask that this block be lifted so I can return to contributing constructively to Wikipedia’s mission. [[User:Neutralwikifixer|Neutralwikifixer]] ([[User talk:Neutralwikifixer#top|talk]]) 16:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I’d like to respond directly and respectfully to the reasons given for this block and explain my intent as clearly as possible.

The summary states that I am “not here to build an encyclopedia.” I disagree with that characterization. My goal has always been to contribute to accurate, truthful, and policy-aligned articles. That’s why I participated in the AfD process for [[Dutch Caribbean]] — not to disrupt, but to raise content-based concerns in a constructive and structured way.

First, regarding my use of the phrase “consensus in favor of deletion”: I now recognize that this was incorrect. The AfD had already been closed as “keep” and included comments supporting that outcome. What I intended to express was that, during the open phase of the discussion, no policy-based objections had been made for several days. I understand that my wording gave the wrong impression, and I take responsibility for that.

Second, I edited the closed AfD discussion. I now realize that this is discouraged, regardless of intent. At the time, I didn’t know that editing closed discussions was considered improper, and I will not do so again.

Third, I want to clearly state that my involvement with the article [[Dutch Caribbean]] was driven by genuine concerns over its encyclopedic validity — particularly the use of problematic terminology. I believe the label itself introduces a lack of neutrality and obscures the distinct political and cultural identities of the islands. These concerns were raised in good faith and in alignment with Wikipedia’s core content policies: neutrality, verifiability, and structure.

I recognize that my phrasing and procedural choices may have caused confusion, and I’ve now taken steps to better understand what’s expected. I respectfully ask that this block be lifted so I can return to contributing constructively to Wikipedia’s mission. [[User:Neutralwikifixer|Neutralwikifixer]] ([[User talk:Neutralwikifixer#top|talk]]) 16:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}