User talk:Dahawk04/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dahawk04. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Red links

With regard to 2025 Coeur d'Alene shooting, please see WP:REDYES which covers when it's acceptable to have red links (and in fact, a good thing). Red links are not bad, and they should not be removed indiscriminately. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person that you are seeking for this issue... Dahawk04 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This is you removing red links, yes (you also didn't provide an edit summary so it wasn't even clear why you removed them)? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe because I was asked to?

cur prev 15:31, 30 June 2025 Bloxzge 025 talk contribs 19,486 bytes −8 →Attack: Stop adding WP:RED links undo thank Tag: Reverted

Dahawk04 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, but you didn't add them after that, I did, as, again, red links are not all necessarily bad. If you originally added them, then you did the right thing and you should refer to WP:REDYES the next time someone removes a red link that you believe should stay. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Dahawk04. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, I noticed some issues with your use of rollback:

Special:Diff/1296265351: You did not warn the user for unconstructive editing. Always make sure to leave proper warning like you often did in the past. You can use the templates here.
Special:Diff/1296263394: This is another case where you did not warn the user for unconstructive editing.
Special:Diff/1296263978: Here, you used rollback to revert an editor without an edit summary who was adding a citation properly. This is an improper use of rollback.
Special:Diff/1296264490: Here, you also used rollback to revert an editor without an edit summary who it appears was making this list run in chronological order. This is also an improper use of rollback.
Special:Diff/1296265534: This is another case where you used rollback to revert an editor without an edit summary who was making a good-faith edit to a plot summary. This is an improper use of rollback.

Remember, you can only use rollback for obvious cases of vandalism. In addition, you should always leave warnings on talk pages after you make reverts for vandalism. This helps administrators to make blocks and often stops people from vandalizing again. Please review the rollback guidelines above. Continued improper use will result in removal of the rollback tool from your account without further warning. Thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I will refresh the on the guidelines and please let me know if any of my recent changes are of issue! Dahawk04 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

About G7 Summit

All the articles about Lee Jae-myung's participation are based on articles in Korea, and they are all just quoting Lee Jae-myung's lies. If there is an official announcement from Canada, the G7 members, and other countries, please present it to me. If Lee Jae-myung was invited, does it make sense that there was no official announcement from Canada or articles from other G7 countries or independent third countries? Jesusmas (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

“Trump invited Lee to a summit in the U.S. and they plan to meet soon, according to a White House official. Analysts say the first opportunity for the two to meet could be at a G7 summit in Canada in mid-June.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/trump-south-koreas-new-president-lee-speak-by-phone-lees-office-says-2025-06-06/ Dahawk04 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

AI/LLM Usage in edits & contributions?

Hi @Dahawk04,

On some recent articles I was reading I noticed what I believe to be AI/LLM generated content or assisted writing. I was curious as it's quite well written and in my experience this can be somewhat difficult to achieve right now with some existing cloud LLM models. I looked into your contributions and noticed a handful of large single commits of content to various articles that had similar writing styles. Most particularly the use of em dashes and en dashes in a large chunk of the written content.

I don't personally believe there is anything wrong with this as it meets Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:CGC. In fact, I am in support of the usage of AI/LLMs to help improve and write better content while covering more subjects and languages in less time as long as the content is accurate, well-written and meets guidelines. I know Wikipedia is exploring implementing AI tools to support editors and there's also a handful of Wikipedians experimenting with different AI projects.

Anyways, the reason I'm reaching out is my own curiosity as to which models you are currently using and if you are doing anything in particular in terms of prompt engineering, instruction sets using Wikipedia datasets, using MCP with multiple models, etc. I find it quite well written and I'd love to learn more to improve my knowledge if this is something you're experimenting with.

If you're not using AI/LLM in your edits you can disregard this message lol and just know your writing is impressive either way!

Thank you,

MSWDEV user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 02:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit has at least four URLs supposedly consulted yesterday but non-existent today and non-archived; the information is mostly either {{failed verification}}s or more or less a copy/paste. This edit has wasted a lot of my time. Boud (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you read the WP:5P. If I had immediately suspected your edit of being written by an LLM it would have been easy to undo, but the whole problem with LLMs is that the content they write generally sounds credible. I started out just fixing the first few errors that I found. If you use an LLM again for Wikipedia content, please thoroughly check the new material first, and integrate it with the existing content. Do not just delete the old content because it's not in the general style that the LLM produces for you. Check that the sources actually exist and that the content is a fair summary of the notable information. It would actually be less work to find real sources and find key info rather than help accelerate the climate emergency by using an LLM. Boud (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Boud Are you talking to me? I'm a bit confused here as it seems like you're reply to me but speaking to @Dahawk04? user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 02:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@MSWDEV: - Sorry for the confusion - my use of "you" in the I strongly ... comment is to Dahawk04. Boud (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Boud Or you could chill and realize that maybe I was using a place holder when I was drafting and forgot to replace it. If you would like to continue your disrespectful accusatory tone please stop commenting. Otherwise, I’m happy to have a conversation should you wish to show civility and respect. Maybe you should taste your own medicine and review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5P

Here are the sources that so rattled you for reference.

Dahawk04 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for my tone, but this is the first time that I've come across such a substantial addition of material to a Wikipedia article containing placeholders for sources (together with removal of existing material and at least one WP:RS), along with so many {{fv}}s. I propose that we work piece by piece with appropriate discussions on specific edits at Talk:United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine to aim at achieving consensus on your proposed changes. Doing section-by-section edits would make it a lot easier to discuss them and achieve rough consensus and to check that they are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. Boud (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Putin-Trump February 2025 phone call

Hi, @Dahawk04. Thank you again for helping with my infobox edit to HRMMU, though in vain as it's reverted to a Wikidata canned one. Still, the outcome is a better article, IMHO.

As to your nomination of the February call article, let me oppose it: I've added an EP request at the Talk page, which precisely underscores topic's significance. The call, in fact, as added with supported by RS in my request, opened a Pandora box of further calls, already having a section at the article. For better or worse, consequences are really significant. If you still insist, I would suggest a merger, definitely not a speedy deletion. Thank you. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Miguel Uribe Turbay before attempted assassination.webp

Thank you for uploading File:Miguel Uribe Turbay before attempted assassination.webp. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mason7512 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coastal Medical Transportation Systems Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coastal Medical Transportation Systems Logo.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¦» 00:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

It was in the article and you are the one that removed it… https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coastal_Medical_Transportation_Systems&oldid=1299534658 Dahawk04 (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Newsom v. Trump has been accepted

Newsom v. Trump, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Garsh (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

A belated Welcome!

Hi Dahawk04! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Incomplete rollback

This edit appears to be an incomplete rollback, note that IPv6 editors often have addresses that change very quickly. Also please consider using a slightly more descriptive edit summary, thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four I don’t see how it is incomplete. Also the edit made in the lead was well.. non constructive Dahawk04 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming you were intending to revert Special:Diff/1299858421/1299861756, but you only reverted Special:Diff/1299859732/1299861756. Your edit summary of "Non-constructive edit" would make sense for the former, but does not make sense for the latter.

I can tell from the edit summary that ultraviolet produced that you used rollback, but the IPv6 editor's address changed partway through their edits. So when you pressed rollback it reverted 2a02:1810:363d:6700:50d6:e620:3e1c:40a1, but not 2a02:1810:363d:6700:c4ac:34d5:efb0:ce8f. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Rajeshwari Chatterjee

What is this Special:Diff/1299863765 reversion with the rationale "Unexplained content removal" for? My edit clearly states "MOS:DR" as the rationale. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies hit the wrong button. Restored your version Dahawk04 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries. But please take care during reverts. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Please do not label good faith edits or page moves as "Vandalism" as you did here: [1]. "Vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia; read the last paragraph of the intro of Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information. Thanks. Some1 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe your edit was good faith. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 23:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Well then, please learn to WP:Assume good faith. Some1 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tenshi Hinanawi. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. 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. Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)