User talk:Whirlingmerc

Welcome!

Hi Whirlingmerc! I noticed your contributions to Ark of the Covenant 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! Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logged-out editing

You must exercise caution when contributing with the Texas IPs Special:Contributions/47.187.234.103 and Special:Contributions/2603:8080:AE00:1615:0:0:0:0/64 on the same pages that you edit with your registered username. Please read WP:MULTIPLE, which you have violated at Ark of the Covenant. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Your recent editing history at Ark of the Covenant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Ark of the Covenant. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Talk:Ark of the Covenant. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Ark of the Covenant. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. https://www.ritmeyer.com and https://biblearchaeology.org are not WP:RSs. Ixocactus (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Adam Schiff, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Section headings should be written in sentence case, not title case —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation theology

Hi there. I have now twice removed the "Comparisons" section you added to the Liberation theology article. The main problem is that these edits reflect your opinions (WP:NOTESSAY) and therefore your analysis and synthesis in comparison (WP:NOR). Wikipedia is meant to be based on verifiable sources as opposed to an editor's work. Your section is mainly quoting from various authors that do not engage each other but presented as obviously different. Who says these are different and who says these are incompatible?

A better alternative to the edits you are making is perhaps to create a section on criticisms against liberation theology. This way, you can cite published sources (by conservatives or others). However, some of that already exists, for instance, in the Latin American liberation theology#Reactions. So be sure that what you add in the general Liberation theology article is about the disposition as a whole -- and make sure it is based on reliable published sources. —Caorongjin 💬 08:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt offering

Hi there! You recently added some references to the Guilt offering article. Could you please fix reference #8 to remove the red error? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. Apologies for some reason I didn’t notice that error. Whirlingmerc (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Resurrection of Jesus, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 15:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 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 Resurrection of Jesus, 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. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies will try to modify and sandbox

The intent was related to the people who went through the trauma of seeing Jesus suffering and passion were the same people who first to see the resurrection Whirlingmerc (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for bible refs

I know it might seem like I'm being tough, but it takes a while to learn wikipedia, and I hope you see my involvement as being in the spirit of learning and improving. I highly recommend you check out Template:Bibleverse for refs to bible texts, if you have any questions, you can ask on its talk page. Mikewem (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend carefully studying WP:SUMMARY, WP:NPOV, WP:CFORK, WP:NPOVT, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:CONSENSUS for future edits. Mikewem (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LLM content from Whirlingmerc

Mikewem (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued use of LLM generated content despite open ANI thread on your conduct and use of LLM generated text. It is not clear that you have the ability to be a member of the community.

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 ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always used my own ideas and only used LLM to check and assist with improving grammar and spelling. Checking if things are likely in compliance with Wikipedia policies and checking links are valid etc... I do not see prohibitions against writing something with your own ideas and using various checkers and writing assistants. It is not a case of generation of material with an LLM.

I do note that the criticisms morphed. Fringe views. Unintelligible. Quoting the Bible only (never true). Quoting sermons or homilies (for famous historical figures of centuries ago?)

If I take as examples the addition to The seven words of the cross I noted Luke as author of the gospel and book of Acts have Jesus Jesus praying to the Father and Stephen praying to Jesus the same two things, suggesting or supporting Jesus as divine. Supported by experts. Not original research with novel conclusions. Yes grammar fixed and tightened more tersely.

Another example might be in the the case of Esau stealing the birthright added a comment where a famine immediately followed with a theologian seeing it as God demonstrating covenant displeasure. I don't see why that's a problem

I do note that if there is an article with Mary Maximalist views like the ark points to Mary, Jacobs ladder points to Mary, the two Esau and Jacob in the womb points to Mary and you attempt to add a protestant view all of a sudden you get FRINGE UNINTELLIGIBLE and goes through the gamut of objections. And if I run the post through Wikipedia to check compliance I still get the same objecting and I tend to thing there is some viewpoint discrimination.

I read and studied the Bible for over 50 years as an adult and take care to be accurate and truthful. I see a range of criticisms some valid some a bit hyperbolic. Here the objection thread was I mainly quoted the Bible (on a biblical topic - horror of horrors... but was not actually true) and then it was original research and point of view and when I said I ran checks on that is changed to you used LLM ( horror of horrors ???in 2025???? as a PHD who teaches GenAI and expert in Bible and yes using grammar and writing assists are not strictly prohibited) I think you have to ask if there is some viewpoint discrimination going on. I see mixed criticism. I wrote and rewrote and rewrote things. I posted things on talk for review. In cases where there were Mary Maximalist view, I saw hyperbolic criticisms. If I acicdentally deleted content in one case I didnt realize and in one case I fixed but frankly your reviewed deleted the catholic view accidentally once. And I note the catholic view was written as so and so said followed by a blob quote... and so... not sure there was editorial care in holding that to the same standards. Am I wrong?

As I said Peace and Appoligies Whirlingmerc (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Apologies for aggravating you

Peace Whirlingmerc (talk) 14:02, 21 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).

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

Request reason:

reasons given above but I will add one point I should be more careful yet more double checking links and yet more validating sources. However I never ever generated ideas using LLM. I did use for grammar and to tighten and to check compliance and format. Whirlingmerc (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Using a LLM is only a symptom of the larger problems with your conduct, which you don't fully address here. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 22 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.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I am finding it problematic that the most pushback I got was for articles where there was a catholic view. And even Mormon, Bahai, Islamic view but lacked a meaningful Protestant view. It was even more problematic when the catholic view was Mary maximalists. The ark of the covenant claimed to be a type of Mary. Clear Pauline statements from Ephesians on psalm 68 claimed fringe by reviewers. I see significant viewpoint discrimination. On the subject of lms as I said I write and often too long and use to make more terse and better style and go back and forth. I do not generate posts with lms. I also do not only cite the Bible but since I have interest in a biblical page citing the Bible is reasonable and I do use llm to check formatting and policy compliance particularly recently

Decline reason:

Your explanation of how you use an LLM for editing (Special:Diff/1291628061) shows a misunderstanding of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. LLMs currently perform poorly in assessing source reliability, evaluating text for policy compliance, and generating policy-compliant text, and should not be used for these purposes. As noted in the discussion at WP:ANI § LLM content from Whirlingmerc, your LLM-assisted article edits have repeatedly fallen below Wikipedia's standards, particularly the policy against original research (WP:NOR), as your LLM-generated citations do not adequately verify your added text in many of your edits. Additionally, you have been disruptively posting long LLM-generated comments on talk pages such as Talk:Ark of the Covenant at a speed that overwhelms the capacity of our human reviewers, which is detrimental to Wikipedia considering the low quality of the LLM output. To be considered for an unblock, you need to agree to cease using LLMs and similar tools for editing Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 21:13, 22 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.

Whirlingmerc (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a clear explanation of the LLM-utilising process you have been using to "check formatting and policy compliance"? Which LLM? What prompts have you been giving it? Where were you told that this was possible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are simple prompts. I taught prompt engineering at university and have 4 engineering degrees and 46 years in IT. For a GPT you can say 1) Given the following : { put text here } check compliance with Wikipediae standards and suggest area of improvement. 2) Given the following : { put text here } and wiki formats for ref tagged citations here { put url pointing to page } put sources and bible verses in proper format. 3) Given the following { put text here } is is long for a Wikipedia article and can you tighten it and make it more terse? 5) 3) Given the following { put text here } is is long for a Wikipedia article and can you tighten it and make it more terse? 6) Given the following { put text here } is is in line with a subsection of a larger Wikipedia article { put the major and minor subject here} and say if there is overlap and repetition suggesting what should be removed and is it in line in tone and style with the surrounding sections. 7) check for broken links and reliability of sources in the following: { put text here }. These are reasonable checks. As far as I can see writing your ideas and shaping them with Grammarly or other tools or tightening them up is reasonable. Whirlingmerc (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that the delimiters {} are not important and could be /// put text here /// and actual policies in a modern GPT can be input as a document as input, screenshot to extract or even url(s) pointing to policies. It is a form of GenAI but not an unreasonable one. People use Grammarly type AI all the time and best in a back and forth suggestion rewrite mode to leverage creativity and tedious checking. Whirlingmerc (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis have you concluded that LLMs (or any other form of software) are capable of checking 'compliance with Wikipedia standards'? Is there peer-reviewed published research on this? If so, where can it be found? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is disqualifying. ChatGPT does not properly check for compliance with Wikipedia policies and guideline. And yes, if your process using LLMs results in the semi-readable, variably encyclopedic, awkwardly sourced, tangentially topical contributions you've made with LLMs, then that's another strong reason why it ought to remain inappropriate. I hope any admin that is willing to unblock you does so on the condition you pledge to not use an LLM in any way whatsoever. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is only advisory Whirlingmerc (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your policy allows use in an assistive advisory context. "LLMs are assistive tools"

In this case there is a bit more going on related to viewpoint discrimination where there is typically a Catholic section and no protestant or reformed view and pushback when one is added. Even comments there needs to be more balance in the views get archived or removed by though claiming they promote neutrality. Whirlingmerc (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You realize a reviewer was repeatedly marking posts as FRINGE that were not. It's a clear cut case of viewpoint discrimination. The excuses changed but the underlying issue remains viewpoint discrimination. Whirlingmerc (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are not being discriminated against because of 'viewpoint discrimination'. You have been blocked because you are utterly incapable of meaningfully engaging in the process of two-way communication a collaborative process entails - as amply demonstrated by yet more missing-the-point posts.

Any unblock decision is not mine to make, but I would like to make it clear to any admin considering this unblock request that I would oppose it, on grounds of incompetence in basic communication, and incidentally as yet further evidence that LLMs are being misused in a manner detrimental to the project - something we clearly need to deal with more systematically. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain the FRINGE markings for plain historical protestant positions? Such as Paul quoting psalm 68 pointing to the ascension? Whirlingmerc (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that an editor *could* utilize LLMs in a way to make them more productive, it's clear that this particular editor is not a member of that group. I'm not sure why a claimed PhD is unable to write passages on their own. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the passage regarding Ephesians 4 where Paul quotes Psalm 68 on my own and it didn't matter still got blocked FRINGE. It's a view point discrimination underlying issue. Whirlingmerc (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might explain why a classical view is marked FRINGE? Whirlingmerc (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to understand why someone would put a block of Mary maximalist views followed by Mormon Bahai Mulsim and aggressively mark protestant views as fringe and just cycle though objections and even after discussion on a talk page rush out and weeks lake after opportunity was present to discuss mark it encyclopedic and hide the concern that it's not balanced to have the Catholic view without the Protestant. Whirlingmerc (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to this point specifically: it's very possible that in some of these articles the "Mary maximalist" and Mormon/Baháʼí/Muslim views are WP:UNDUE and should be trimmed or reorganized, but inserting blocks of low-quality, poorly-sourced, and in many cases AI-hallucinated information is not a solution to this problem. -- LWG ^talk 02:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in since I was referred to (I'm the human reviewer whose capacity is being overwhelmed) and because I was earlier attempting to engage in a good faith discussion with Whirlingmerc. The explanations of AI use given here is inadequate to explain edits like this in which what appears to be blatantly hallucinated information was introduced. The Piper book cited in that edit is available online here and contains nothing resembling the quote "The most horrible, wicked, and painful event in the history of the world was planned by God for the eternal good of his people." This not an isolated incident but a pattern characterizing the Whirlingmerc content I have reviewed so far. This is inexcusable coming from someone who has claimed to be a PHD with expertise on the subject of AI. Whirlingmerc, I believe that you are here in good faith, and I would like to see you eventually grow into the ability to contribute constructively here, but your current edit patterns are not on that trajectory. If you eventually get unblocked you really need to refrain from all AI-assisted editing and focus on figuring out how to write clearly and concisely with your own words. -- LWG ^talk 02:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The view of Paul that psalm 68 which concerns the ascension of the ark up Zion pointing to the ascension of Jesus is a classical view and neither fringe or hallucinated. There has a spurgeon sermon entirely by that title and many dissertations done on it Whirlingmerc (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Mary maximalist views are presented such as. The ark claimed to be a type of Mary, Jacob’s ladder a type of Mary. Or the twins Esau and Jacob carried by Rebecca before birth a type of Mary it is entirely reasonable to have a balancing Protestant or reformed view Whirlingmerc (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LWG has just presented above conclusive evidence of outright falsification of a quotation. This falsification is utterly dishonest, and inexcusable. We do not lie to our readers. Whether the fictitious quote aligns with 'classical views' is an utter irrelevance. A lie is a lie. The quotation was falsified. Whirlingmerc added it to the article. Not an LLM. Whirlingmerc, who claims to have a PhD on LLM-related topics, must be aware that such software may 'hallucinate', and thus absolutely must have been aware of the need to check LLM-generated citations against the source cited, if indeed an LLM actually originated the false quote. But what response do we get? Nothing addressing the falsification whatsoever. No attempt at an explanation as to how it happened. Nothing at all. At this juncture, I have to question the merits of even allowing Whirlingmerc continued talk page access. We have been presented with nothing but repetitive refusal-to-meaningfully-respond bullshit, from a 'contributor' who appears to believe that fictitious quotes are permissible as long as they are in agreement with something somebody else may have written. This is so far removed from even the most minimal expectations we might place on a contributor that it seems pointless to engage further. Not that Whirlingmerc is 'engaging' anyway. Just bullshitting, endlessly, without remorse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are too kind. Why exactly do longstanding no and even ancient views get marked fringe? Whirlingmerc (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no outright falsification Whirlingmerc (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above absurd statement - a refusal to acknowledge that a supposed quotation was fictitious, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence - there can now be no possibility of permitting Whirlingmerc to contribute further. This isn't just incompetence, this isn't just a betrayal of the trust our readers should place in our content, it is a denial of objective reality. I'm done here, since I've already made my opinion entirely clear, and I think we can safely assume that after the latest post, no unblock is going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no intent to mislead. There were no generated from nothing cases I’m fine with no unblocking and already apologized for the aggradation. In the cited case of Piper I hear many speakers and heard him hundreds of times even on the subject quoted and those are his opinions. So I withdraw the unblock

It’s still a mystery to me why long standing views such as this on Paul in Ephesians on psalm 68 would be marked fringe. Particularly when preceded by Mary maximalist views. Whirlingmerc (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not too long ago I've been presented with 'incontrovertible evidence" before that claimed I made up a book at didn't exist and had to show the the Amazon link. As far as the Piper Quote that is exactly the sort of thing he would say and had said as I heard him many times. Whirlingmerc (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"conclusive evidence of outright falsification of a quotation" This is hyperbole. There was no intent to falsify or awareness of falsification. Whirlingmerc (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]