User talk:Orlando Davis: Difference between revisions

Line 126: Line 126:

:::::@[[User:Orlando Davis|Orlando Davis]] I’m going to say no, unless your goal here is to get INDEFfed and lose TPA. @[[User:NicheSports|NicheSports]] I’m mostly offline this week. But if OD wishes to have them copied, you can feel free to proceed as you wish. [[User:Star Mississippi|Star]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|Mississippi]] 03:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for reviewing the information I have added. I do want to add that information to the ANI. Additionally, I am still working on more information that I would like added. I just added another topic on the MasterCooks. [[User:Orlando Davis|Orlando Davis]] ([[User talk:Orlando Davis#top|talk]]) 11:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

::::::Here you go [[Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Incidents#Orlando_Davis_response]]

::::::Someone may copy it all, I do not have the on wiki time this week to do so. [[User:Star Mississippi|Star]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|Mississippi]] 13:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

== Further Response to CBAN (MasterCooks of Belgium) ==

Thank you Moritoriko, and thank you Orlando Davis! Arminden (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well! Orlando Davis (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cherry Hill model Merryweather fire engine.jpeg. 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. —B-bot (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t add incorrect maintenance tags to articles. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking down “Optimax was established as one of the first private clinics to offer laser eye surgery.”

As a statement like that must be sourced very well for it to be neutral.

Thank you! Orlando Davis (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith tagging in retaliation at Bianca Censori is disruptive and likely to lead to editing restrictions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warning. I assure you my intent is to improve the article by ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

My application of the tag was based solely on the article’s heavy reliance on sources that detail her controversial relationship and public appearances, which I believe may violate Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (NPOV) by overemphasizing sensationalism at the expense of her professional career. I also have concerns about the reliability of the sources used to detail the constant cycle of relationship rumors.

I am committed to discussing the sourcing and balance issues on the Talk Page to reach a consensus. Could you please specify which tag you are referring to, and why you believe it was placed in “bad faith” so we can discuss the underlying content issue? Orlando Davis (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional template is not the same as the neutrality template. The promotional template is for content where there is inappropriate promotion, advertising and such. There are POV templates and undue templates, which are for NPOV issues. I think what you meant to use are the latter, but for that, I’d advise you to use the POV templates instead. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged Police abolition with the {{promo}} tag, despite the article not containing promotional material.
When reverted you added a {{POV}} tag. This is an article started by @Valereee:, the person here who has been most kind to you.

You also tagged Bianca Censori with the {{promo}} tag, despite the article not containing promotional material. That article was started by Theroadislong who cleaned up your mess

You also tagged Optimax with the {{promo}} tag, despite the article not containing promotional material. That article was also started by Theroadislong.

The reason you did that is obvious, these are two editors that tried to help you, and instead of thanking them you tag articles they started in retaliation.

If this is the path you choose, then the next step is you getting blocked. It takes me far less time to write a ANI report than to fix the articles ChatGPT generates. Polygnotus (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. I was asked to put up the correct tag. So I did. It was not reverted because it was not warranted. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are skating on very thin ice. Polygnotus (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I applied the tags in good faith, following Wikipedia policy to maintain article quality. They were removed without explanation or attempt to improve the articles first, which is contrary to standard procedure. My actions were entirely policy-driven, not personal, and I remain open to constructive discussion about their application. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am many things but not stupid. Even people who dislike me will tell you that. Polygnotus (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith—I like you, Polygnotus; this isn’t about that. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Polygnotus (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the tags “were removed without explanation or attempt to improve the articles first” is incorrect… at Optimax I removed the content you said was promotional before removing your tag and at Bianca Censori I removed non neutral content before another editor removed the tag. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying; I appreciate your efforts on those articles. I remain concerned about Police Abolition. My point is that tags should be discussed or justified before they are removed. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reread the article Bianca Censori. It remains non-neutral, despite claims to the contrary. The article emphasizes sensational personal events over her professional accomplishments, giving disproportionate weight to her relationship with Kanye West and controversial public appearances. Many statements rely on tabloids or opinionated sources, and some phrasing mirrors their tone rather than presenting facts objectively. As a result, the article portrays her more through scandal and gossip than through a balanced, encyclopedic account of her career and life. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? Out of 7 million article you decided to tag these specific articles started by these specific people. Polygnotus (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says your comment is 99% AI generated, I have no desire to discuss with LLM. Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NicheSports (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here to the CBAN Proposal

[edit]

The following is intended as context regarding the CBAN proposal. The information I provide contains verifiable evidence.

The information I provide is not due to a personal dispute or any assumptions I make. It is only a summary of observable actions.

1. Michael Katz (CHEF) Afd/ WP ASPERSIONS

After posting a vote on the Michael Katz (chef) AFD, Polygnotus asked me if I had a conflict of interest. While it’s not against Wikipedia policy to inquire about COI, there is no evidence for that.

2. Removed Tag without a valid reason

After I added a neutrality tag to the Police Abolition article, Polygnotus removed it without justification. The tag was warranted since there are neutrality issues in the article.

3. Antisemitism / Holocaust–Related Pages

A pattern of behavior is evidenced by a history of deleting and removing content.

Removal of Antisemitism content:
Removal of Holocaust Trivialization content:
Removal of Holocaust Denial Content:

4. Additional Evidence of Polygnotus’s Long Term Pattern of a Behavior that is not compatible with Wikipedia

I add more diffs below:

Evidence of lack of civility:
Evidence of edit wars: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8
Evidence of canvassing: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

5. Evidence / Documentation

I have not made comments about Polygnotus’s intent or motivation. The information above provides observable behavior.

6. Conclusion / Context for Consideration

Polygnotus’s actions demonstrate a long term history of behavior that diminishes the quality of the Wikipedia encyclopedia and goes against its core value of collaboration. I am submitting this in order to provide context in regard to the CBAN proposal. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling down with a personal attack is clearly not going to help! Theroadislong (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the AI concerns… Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The potential AI use is secondary to creating an attack dossier on Polygnotus, much of which is unrelated to the ANI case. But back to process, should someone bring this to ANI (per Star Mississippi’s comment)? NicheSports (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Star Mississippi – I don’t think any of this is particularly constructive, but asking out of process considerations. Should any of this be moved to the ANI case? NicheSports (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis I’m going to say no, unless your goal here is to get INDEFfed and lose TPA. @NicheSports I’m mostly offline this week. But if OD wishes to have them copied, you can feel free to proceed as you wish. Star Mississippi 03:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the information I have added. I do want to add that information to the ANI. Additionally, I am still working on more information that I would like added. I just added another topic on the MasterCooks. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Incidents#Orlando_Davis_response

Someone may copy it all, I do not have the on wiki time this week to do so. Star Mississippi 13:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a response to Niche’s comment: “In the meantime, they repeatedly reintroduced promotional content to Mastercooks of Belgium – see 149”

There appears to be some questionable edits by Polygnotus and TheRoadIsLong. This is not comprehensive since I did not want to make the page unreadable.

Involved Editors:

Polygnotus – Over many edits, he re-added content that had previously been removed without justification. Making non-encyclopedic, subjective commentary in his Wikipedia notes.
TheRoadIsLong – He used promotional language as a justification for his edit notes when the content was already neutral.

Examples (Polygnotus):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688329=He repeatedly added content without making substantial changes, using a non justifiable summary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688445Did tweaks that do not have any substantial relevance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324688566He removed neutral wording without a non encyclopedic justification ( Polygnatus said fancruft).
03:00–03:01, 29 Nov 2025 – Here, he removes neutral content, adding subjective non-encyclopedic summaries. Hereand here.

Examples (TheRoadIsLong):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324755168He reverted my minor paragraph structure changes that I documented correctly and misrepresented what he did in the notes, calling it removing Promotional content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324758616What he did was make a minor change and misrepresented what he did in the notes, calling it Promotional content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mastercooks_of_Belgium&diff=prev&oldid=1324764255 Took out content on Deer Industry New Zealand that was relevant and sourced. The source is acceptable for information related to the company.

Conclusion:

We see questionable edits. Further investigation is needed for a complete picture of what happened. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first point I’d like to make is that I completely agree with Star Mississippi‘s ruling that my AI use was incidental. I do promise to never again use AI, neither in an article or a talk page. And since the conversation is no longer about AI, I want to focus on an analysis of the diffs presented by fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four.

I think that my interactions on the first week of being on Wikipedia can be excused simply for a complete lack of knowledge of policy. It should also be noted that I have not been a regular editor, more like a binge editor.

Having gone through all the diffs that fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four has presented as evidence of my behavior, I see how I can be defensive and assertive. However, I don’t see a case that I am a person incompatible with the encyclopedia. In debates, I have defended my positions with passion and policy-based reasoning. That is not considered to be edit warring, and if there were any exceptions early on, it was mainly because I was still learning what the rules were, so I believe that leniency on my early AFD’s for example, make sense.

I have no issue explaining my reasoning for why, as a whole, most if not all of those diffs are either not severe or not a problem at all. I don’t have a problem if someone disagrees; I am glad to discuss each and every point. Orlando Davis (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here to the CBAN Proposal

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply