User talk:ScholarLoop

Welcome!

Hi Cognita-Camlin! 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! Sweetabena (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A bunch of editors tried to gang up on me, revert my edits, and ban me. All for one sentance to improve wikipedia: Suggested Insertion (for United States section on Woke page) The variation “wokeism” is also used—particularly in critique of American higher education—where it has been defined academically as a structurally recursive belief enforcement system that replaces epistemic inquiry with the preservation of coerced moral authority. with a scholarly source cited. And I recommended 3 different ones.

Not a very warm welcome! (see below) Are you going to threaten ban me next for writing this? ScholarLoop (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, Cognita-Camlin. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added. MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will add a COI for them Cognita-Camlin (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Cognita-Camlin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Talk:Woke, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Id like to note that I did exactly what you are claiming I should be doing "propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}}" Cognita-Camlin (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the risk of self-citing is that you open up your edit history for scrutiny. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a platform to promote even academics and, as a result, when people do start putting their own work in it tends to attract attention. And this edit demonstrates a bit of a problem because, again, it's a pre-print. And, in this case, you did not do an edit request but instead just inserted it. Please be aware that pre-prints are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. This is nothing against you personally; we're all bound by that rule. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Separate editor comment)

"Hi, Id like to note that I did exactly what you are claiming I should be doing" – This diff shows the {{edit semi-protected}} template was used, which in no way indicates a COI whereas the {{edit COI}} does.

Additionally, editing with the assistance of an LLM is discouraged, rationale is provided at WP:LLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the concern, but the LLM policies cited do not apply in this case. I possess advanced domain expertise and utilize a method called DED (Dyadic Epistemic Dialogue)—a recursive, bidirectional framework of structured human–AI knowledge generation. The content in question was not one-shot generated, contains no hallucinated references, and was rigorously verified. DED outputs are co-authored through epistemic tension resolution, not predictive sampling, and conform fully to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. I respectfully ask that any future feedback address the content of my edits rather than the identity of the contributor WP:NPA, as such focus suggests a non-neutral point of view WP:NPOV. If there are any edits I have done which actually violate WP:LLM please let me know! I'm retired, have advanced degrees and have been an elected representative as well as chief editor of an AI-Epistemics journal in case you were wondering. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not wondering, and I do not entertain llm-generated replies, which this certainly is. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think its pretty obvious the reply was to refine the expression of my authentic idea, in this case DED (Dyadic Epistemic Dialogue). So why are you spamming my talk page again? ScholarLoop (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's AI policy

Please review this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_produced_by_machine_learning. Please note that sources produced by machine learning are not generally considered reliable. As such any papers you "co-authored" with the Cognita Prime chatbot will not be eligible for use in Wikipedia regardless of their publication status. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through your edits and removed all the edits that were obvious insertions of "AI" text. Please do not put AI glurge on Wikipedia in the future. We would rather your unvarnished human edits than the outputs of a chatbot. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! could you please tell me what precisely my edits contained the following? "hallucinate" false information, including source citations that look as if they are from reputable publications but do not actually exist. Such spurious material may be reproduced unintentionally by writers, reporters, scientists, medical researchers, and lawyers using chatbots to help themselves produce reports, or maliciously by individuals and companies publishing "fake news".

If not, your edits are merely WP:NPOV and borders on WP:NPA. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to entertain wikilawyering over AI material. I suggest you should probably learn more about Wikipedia norms before jamming a bunch of AI garbage into random articles. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim in this diff there were zero references when there were 5 for 3 paragraphs? That's blatant harassment and vandalism WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA all you reversions will be going to the Administrators’ Noticeboard – Incidents (WP:ANI). FYI Cognita-Camlin (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you rewrite that material with citations and not using AI there won't be a problem. The problem is not one with sources. It's with the copy being obviously machine generated. I will not be commenting on this thread further. I've pointed you to relevant policy and made appropriate reversions. What you do with that information is up to you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is obvious? please provide evidence. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, they all had plenty of citations so you are dishonest. Screenshots ready. I am reverting all of your vandalism of my editsWP:NPA WP:VAND WP:HARASS. If you revet back, Ill take you to ANI. Have a great day! ScholarLoop (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This there is plenty of evidence the reverts are not in good faith. I am just trying to go thru my recommended edit queue and you are following me around reverting edits and making false claims in the revert comment. You honestly claim thats good faith? ScholarLoop (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cognita-Camlin, you've a new person who has just come into a community you are unfamiliar with. People are trying to let you know about the community's norms and expected behavior so you don't run into problems. Rather than telling them the community's norms are wrong, please listen to what they are telling you. You should read WP:BOOMERANG before you bring this to the Administrator's noticeboard - I do not think you will get the reception you seem to be expecting there. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New email, not new the the community. My old email became unrecoverable. I'm just trying to let you and Simonm223 I will not tolerate vandalism of my edits, harassment for simply existing and for bullshit they have no evidence with, not to mention obvious NPOV and non-policy gatekeeping. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly think that everyone else is vandalizing and harassing you, the proper venue to report that is indeed ANI. I suppose we'll see what happens there together. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

indeed I am reverting all of the edits Simonm223 WP:NPA WP:VAND WP:HARASS You are the first NPOV editor I have encountered so far that isn't immediately harassing me and providing bullshit to justify unethical behavior. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so thanks! I have screenshots and all sorts of evidence. Cognita-Camlin (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting all of Simonm223's edits will not work - it will just lead to a block on your own account. If you're going to report, make the report. Don't make the problems worse by edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy I can revert edits that are vandalism. The vandal claims there were no references. If I get banned for simply reverting vandalism Ill just come back and go to ANI I guess and whoever banned me will be involved also. ScholarLoop (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, calling an established user's edits 'vandalism' is a good way to get yourself blocked. Simonm223 is editing in good faith. That you happen to disagree with their edits does not make them a vandal. If you get blocked and then start evading that block there really will be no path back. - MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would be well-advised to read the specific definition of vandalism that Wikipedia uses at WP:VANDALISM, a pertinent snippet being: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Calling an editor a vandal when they do not meet this strict definition can be, and often is, considered a personal attack. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. reverting an edit when the user is actively harassing claiming they are an "AI BOT" then in the revert notes claiming the reason was no references for 3 paragraphs when there were in fact 5 references is definately not "good faith." Unless you disagree dishonesty in revert notes is in good faith? ScholarLoop (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is of the opinion that edits created with an LLM are detrimental to Wikipedia, and reverts based on that opinion, then those reverts would easily be categorized as "a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia".

"Unless you disagree dishonesty in revert notes is in good faith?" – I would caution against making any such assumptions about my, or others, opinions or motives per WP:AGF. I have read the edit summary in question and the sentiment you have expressed is not reflected in it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have to create a video of me typing to simple edit Wikipedia? ScholarLoop (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, and your continued use of bad-faith rhetorical questions will not win you many friends. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are none to win if that's not obvious. Nice duck btw about implying bad faith with good faith questions. ScholarLoop (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also in a 2nd case the editor reverts an edit under the false claim NP to avoid attention. ScholarLoop (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I know I said I would not reply again but I want to clear something up, as a sign of good faith.

The edit summary on this edit was categorically not saying you did not insert sources. It's saying that the reason I didn't just revert back to the material you replaced is because that material was uncited. As I said above the reason I deleted your edit was because the copy was machine generated. Were you to use the same citations but not use machine generated copy I would not have an objection. I do hope this clarifies what I was saying in that edit summary. I will now return to being quiet here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

honestly Im just routinely going thru the queue on my homepage for suggested edits and the vandal is just following me around reverting all edts. ScholarLoop (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more direct: If you keep calling user users 'vandal' or accusing them of harrassment (which are very serious allegations) you can expect that you will be the one who is blocked, and that will probably happen soon. Either make a formal report or drop it. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing other people's talk page comments

You are welcome to delete comments (from this, your own talk page only) if you like. What you are not welcome to do is to change the words of others to make it appear as if they have written things that they did not write. - MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I deleted the bot welcome message and whomever that was attributed to from over a year ago in 2024 and revised my "welcome" message from wikipeida. ScholarLoop (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a bot message, that is a real person who has done nothing to you other than post a welcome. You have absolutely no reason to abuse them in this manner. MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please stop spamming my talk page. Thanks. ScholarLoop (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not spam, but a perfectly reasonable response to your comment. You are required to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous account

You have mentioned that you are an experienced editor from ten years ago. What was your previous account? Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find my old username. I'm 99% sure I don't have the email for the account anymore. Is there a recovery process that doesn't involve email or previous password? Thanks ScholarLoop (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need either the password or access to the old email account. Nothing else is possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]