Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Irene Vilar, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pedro Cuperman. Thanks! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated comments such as this on the discussion for Criticism of fascism and this at Boriswave are a waste of other editor's time to read. It is also not useful to spam "No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG" across two dozen AfD's. Please familiarize yourself with the policies concerning deletion, and write unique responses to AfD discussions if you want to participate. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with everything you said. My arguments on Criticism of fascism and Boriswave, are valid. Whether or not I used AI to make my prose more eloquent, is frankly irrelevant. And for the two dozen other AfD's I read, I literally read them all, and their sources (or lack thereof). Do I need to change my phrase every time? The majority of the articles up for deletion face the same problem, lack of secondary sourcing to prove their notoriety. Please clarify. TitCrisse (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are not valid. WP:No original research is a core content policy and forbids editors from introducing new analysis or synthesis from previously published resources. Yet your bot said Criticism of fascism should be deleted because "Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms".

Wikipedia articles in general lack focus and are disjointed, due to the nature of them being constructed piecemeal as part of a collaborative effort from a variety of editors. Your bot complaining about articles being "poorly organized", "fragmented", "challenging for readers to navigate", and "disjointed", are commonly true across Wikipedia and are not reasons for deletion because if something can be fixed through editing then it should be edited rather than deleted.

There's no reason somebody should even address all of your subjective takes about these articles because we don't even know if these are even the takes of someone who has even read these articles, or just something a bot churned out after being asked "Write a post explaining why this article should be deleted". Photos of Japan (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In my humble opinion, you are sorely mistaken. I find your comments accusatory in nature and, quite frankly, harassing. I agreed with the person who proposed to delete this awful article on "Criticism of fascism" because it's an obvious fork. You are committing punishable offences by accusing me of bad faith, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I will give you time to cool off and rethink what you're saying. I haven't violated any WP policies right now. TitCrisse (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

assume that fellow editors working on the project are trying to improve it, not harm it

That is what the policy you cited states. Unless someone is accusing you of trying to harm the project you won't find anyone taking seriously threats of "punishable offenses" for someone asking you to stop posting low quality AI-generated posts in AfDs.

I haven't violated any WP policies right now.

Your comment here where you are cursing at people, yelling in all caps, and laughing madly does not comply with WP:CIVIL. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you tell people not to template you, calling it impersonal and disrespectful, telling them to comment to you "in your own words." The least you could do is show the same respect to others that you ask them to show you. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here to give a stern warning, but found the account globally locked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TitCrisse,

I'm very confused as to why my profile was deleted, and specifically regarding the "No valid secondary sourcing to prove" issue.

Note... aside from being a globally respected dancer and entertainer for nearly 40 years, as well as a globally acknowledged and respected life coach, I've also appeared in many major media outlets including The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Access Hollywood, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and TV Guide, been nominated for a GLADD award, as well as me getting a special acknowledgment from the former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel with "Feb 5, 2017 to be Carlton Wilborn Day In Chicago in recognition of his extraordinary life and enduring efforts that impact culture inform community and inspire change", to name a few.

I believe the issue showed up because I went in last month to update some things, and maybe I did it incorrectly. Also, honestly not really clear on what specific statement, project or show information that you have an issue with. Can you please provide?

For sure it was not my intention to go against the rules of Wikipedia. My Sincere Apology!

Please know that everything I had on my profile was 100% legit!

Any support you can generate to expedite the process of reinstating my profile would be greatly appreciated!

Thank You in advance! Carlton Carltonrising (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Carltonrising

It doesn't seem as though User:TitCrisse has edited your page. Can you clarify why you are requesting their help in particular? Photos of Japan (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that they commented on the deletion discussion for your article. To be clear, User:TitCrisse has been globally blocked from the site, and they were spamming meaningless comments in article deletion discussions, so you can ignore them. I don't know what your article looked like when it got deleted, but if what you're saying is true then you should be able to recreate it with WP:reliable sources and avoid being deleted again. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]