User talk:D4n2016

Teahouse
If you have any question about editing, please refer to Five pillars or Teahouse.Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

D4n2016
Thank you! :)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Android Jetpack (June 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Home Lander was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Android Jetpack and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Android Jetpack, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Android_Jetpack Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Home_Lander&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Android_Jetpack reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Home Lander (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hans Schulz
Hi D4n2016, according to MOS:DABPIPE, piping should not be used on disambiguation pages except to add things like italics. I prefer to use the redirect that was there before, but I changed it to a MOS:DABMENTION. If you don't like this version let me know and we can work it out. Leschnei (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Firefox Rapid Release Model
Hello D4n2016, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Firefox Rapid Release Model, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Firefox Rapid Release Model.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Clear friend  a  💬  23:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I added information to Articles for deletion/Firefox Rapid Release Model on what would happen/what is important if the article would be deleted. Please be aware of that we have to transfer that important information before deletion. --D4n2016 (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Some concerns regarding your "AI-generated" templates
Hello, I'm Kinsio. I'd like to share some concerns regarding the contents of the "AI-generated" series of maintenance templates you've created in your userspace.

First of all, I've reviewed some of your contribution history and noticed that you've already attempted to use these templates in articles directly. This is not an appropriate use of userspace. Templates for use in the article namespace should be created in the Template namespace. However, the greater concern is that based on their content, these templates have no reason to exist in the first place and have some worrying implications about your contributions. My specific concerns are as follows: In summary, please refrain from making edits generated using a LLM in Wikipedia pages without carefully reviewing them, even if you intend to fix them later. Do not add content without citing a reliable source. Be bold and review LLM output yourself before adding it to a Wikipedia article; it's not fair to other editors to expect them to clean it up for you. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, and if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 21:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding User:D4n2016/Template:AI-generated-GPT-4-checked: If you, as the creator of a page, feel the need to add a warning that the page may still include false information or fake references, the only reasonable conclusion is that the text was not, in fact, thoroughly checked by its author upon creation. You should never add information that you suspect is false or references that you have not personally checked to a Wikipedia article. I encourage you to actually read the essay linked to by AI-generated and your templates derived from it for some tips about how to responsibly use LLMs in your contributions.
 * Regarding User:D4n2016/Template:AI-generated-GPT-3.5: If an article is indeed very unlikely to include false information or fake references, there's no reason for the article to have a maintenance tag on it. Either you suspect an issue (in which case, again, you should check on that before you submit your edit!) or you don't. If you'd simply like to disclose that your edit was written with the assistance of a LLM, you should do so in the edit summary.
 * Regarding User:D4n2016/Template:AI-generated-GPT-4-minimal: There's no reason to add a message to a page that it has been visited by many readers. If that's supposed to support the claim that the page is unlikely to include false information or fake references, it's a non sequitur. There are many Wikipedia articles that have been visited by many readers and yet still have issues. And even regardless, again, there's no need for a maintenance tag to specify the strength of conviction of the tagger that there's an issue. The purpose of a maintenance tag is to enlist the help of other editors who may be better positioned to address the issue, not to reassure the reader that "everything's probably fine, though".

Move of BGM-109 Tomahawk
It's done now, and I don't have the energy or interest level to go back and contest this, but I really wish you hadn't moved this without a prior discussion. The problem with this move is that there are several versions of the Tomahawk missile, and quite a few of them are not BGM-109 designations; for instance all of the submarine-launched Tomahawks are UGM-109's; the surface-launched naval variant RGM-109E's are as far as I'm aware still in active service, the BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile isn't even included as it's got it's own separate article, etc. Moving this all to the BGM-109 designation article title both fragments the searchability, and doesn't align with MOS:PRECISION and WP:AT. Would you consider either moving it back, or moving it a second time to Tomahawk (missile family) similar to how we treat other large families of missiles that don't merit individual articles per type (like Aster (missile family), Hisar (missile family), CAMM (missile family), etc.) ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the message! D4n2016 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)