User talk:Somepinkdude: Difference between revisions

If you continue nuisance tagging articles, such as you did at Outline of the Great Purge (Soviet Union) [1] you may be blocked from editing. You obviously do not understand Wikipedia Outlines, the proper use of tags (not for simple problems that you can easily fix), or Wikipedia’s AI guidelines. Further questions can be asked at the WP:TEAHOUSE.  // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts (but never when editing articles). There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Yerlo (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I wanted to let you know that I have revised your G4 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:National Socialist Liberation Party. You marked the draft as having previously been deleted via a deletion discussion, which is not the case. However, the article qualifies as a hoax and will be deleted as such. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Somepinkdude! I see that you’ve already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I wanted to let you know I have declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Noah Sides because it is not unambiguously promotional. Although it has some promotional language, it does not require a fundamental rewrite. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Mario Roshi because the article is not promotional (at least according to Google Translate’s version). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? Tagging a draft 20 minutes after its creation [2] is not appreciated. There is a list of substantial sourcing in the article, easily visible. Please refrain from rash tagging in the future—if I witnessed this as a brand-new editor I would be highly discouraged from working on an article. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Somepinkdude, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Who is Familia De Diversión on youtube, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Speedy deletion criteria starting with A only apply to articles, not drafts. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! You recently nominated Draft:Uck for speedy deletion via A7. As jlwoodwa explained above, articles in the draftspace are not eligible for A7 deletion. As such, another admin declined this nomination. Additionally, I noticed that you did not inform the article creator about the deletion nomination. Per the speedy deletion guidelines, editors should notify major contributors to an article when they nominate it for deletion. Notifications are especially useful to new editors who may not know what they did wrong or even that their article has been deleted. I have heard many newbies ask, “Where did my article go?” Beyond this, notifying the creator and major contributors gives them an opportunity to contest the deletion. Given this, I highly recommend you make sure to notify editors when you nominate their work for deletion. If you want, you can use a tool such as Twinkle for deletions as it automatically sends the notification at the same time you nominate for deletion. If you use Twinkle, you can also create a CSD log to keep track of your speedy deletion nominations, which can be helpful for reflection. I hope all this makes sense! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve gone on a similar spree today as well with pages like Wikipedia:Maxton Heintskill and other contributions of BRAXTYNYKEMA. Please stop doing this. Sohom (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta Oops, sometimes it isn’t easy to tell where a deletion criterion applies. I couldn’t tell how to delete it, and used the wrong criterion (although the pages were later speedily deleted for a different reason). Thank you for informing me; I’ll look through the documentation or avoid deletion next time. Are PRODs allowed in “Wikipedia:” space? They can be useful in cases like this, where the pages obviously shouldn’t be on Wikipedia, but don’t happen to fit under WP:CSD. Somepinkdude (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to deal with this would have been a report to WP:AIV and WP:G6 with a custom rationale. Also, no prods don’t apply outside of article and file space. I would strongly suggest going through our policies on the various deletion criteria before attempting to mark pages for deletion and potentially erring on the side of not tagging if you are unsure for the time being. (Worst case scenario somebody else will get to it) Sohom (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you adding extra reasons here, but please don’t modify what someone said. LTA is enough to explain roughly what is going on to the admins. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Frost. I noticed that in this edit to User:Moneytrees/dummy, 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. Frost 14:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost I removed content because it was an obvious copyright violation of [3]. I think you’re supposed to blank pages before you add {{db-copyvio}}, so I blanked it.

Oh okay. I didn’t realize what you were doing as it seemed like blanking a page in another user’s userspace. Frost 14:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somepinkdude and @Frost:, when not in use, User:Moneytrees/dummy reads This page is used to save dead links for my work at CCI, along with pasting in content that Earwig’s copyvio detector can’t read. You can use this page without asking me to; I have it watchlisted and will get around to revdeling any copyrighted content added. I think my edit was legitimate and the page will be revdelled in due course. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon Oops, I thought it was just another copyright-violating sandbox page. It’s not that often that you find a sanbox constructed for the purpose of testing Earwig’s copyvio detection. Somepinkdude (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Frost 15:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s useful, but it makes sense to have one dedicated sandbox and to clean it regularly. TSventon (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

page creators when tagging for WP:G11 and WP:U5. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors.” Thanks, — Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups. This is a standard message to inform you that the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Somepinkdude, regarding Special:Diff/1310096182, if the removal was made in good faith, WP:BLPRESTORE prohibits restoring it in unmodified form without consensus. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the general guideline on removing content was more wimportant, and was trying to remove an edit that removed content and changed facts. In the future, I’ll be more careful relating to contentious topics. I was not trying to push a POV, and was simply trying to revert disruptive edits on Special:AbuseLog.

how do you undo (not rollback) edits so quickly without using any tools Manualbadeditfix (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a manual revert of multiple edits. If someone has made many successive edits to the same page, you click “history” and find the latest revision which they have not edited. You then edit that revision, which discards the changes made since then. Usually the software will mark those edits as reverted, but sometimes it can’t tell if you reverted the edits. Somepinkdude (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garbage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Runoff. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful about making edits on the basis of essays. They are neither policies nor guidelines nor necessarily representative of either “best practice” or even a general consensus. DonIago (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago What do you mean? I’m sure I have cited essays in my edit summary at least once, but it would help to see which edit you are referring to. Somepinkdude (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, where you cited WP:DTTR as your rationale. If you want to slap me on the wrist for ‘templating a regular’, you’re welcome to do so, but I provide notifications in part as a courtesy, and there’s no policy or guideline that prohibits using a template to do so. In this case, I looked at their Talk page first and saw there’d been very little discussion on it, so using a template seemed like the most efficient way to deliver the message I needed to deliver rather than wasting time formulating my own version of text that would essentially say the same thing. Deleting it entirely solely because it was a templated messge rather than my own text is unwarranted. If the editor themselves disagrees with the template, they can engage with me as well, or delete the message on their own. I would also note that editing or removing other users’ comments on other editors’ Talk pages is generally frowned upon, and that that is a guideline: WP:USERTALKSTOP. DonIago (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn’t know. I assumed this was allowed because someone had done the same to me, in this edit. Somepinkdude (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology; I appreciate it. The difference there is that the editor who removed your edit was the editor on whose Talk page you’d left the message. Editors generally have broad latitude over what messages they can delete from their own Talk pages. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, warnings like this aren’t really appropriate for what’s clearly an error and something that was meant to be made on the talk page. Wikipedia’s a confusing place and that’s likely what they wanted—since it’s not the first time this person has done this, a polite (not-templated!) note saying why what they did is wrong, and what to do instead, can be much more productive. Perryprog (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I’ve very poor relatable sources…and I truly deserved it. Sparkschu Itai (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Somepinkdude. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page’s latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional “status” on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you’re not sure about something, ask!

I’m sure you’ll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I’ll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators’ guide/Rollback (even though you’re not an admin) and Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also make sure to leave user warnings on talk pages when you make reverts. I see a few recent cases where you missed doing so: Special:Diff/1314871737 and Special:Diff/1314872213. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the self-revert

To clarify, I was reverting the IP on Jean Montero for adding unsourced information

And then I found a block evasion IP being reported on AIV, so I went over to revert its edits

Turns out, the evasion IP’s edits largely involved constantly reverting edits by @SigillumVert

And then they falsely reported both of us to AIV after a back-and-forth

So… yeah, I hope this helped you, thank you very much Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Somepinkdude, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Raymond Burnstein, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 22:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert the edit on Andacollo, Neuquén ?? No edit summary? Explain maybe? CoryGlee (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoryGlee: Please read WP:NPOV. Adding a section entitled “Notorious People” is absolutely non-neutral, and probably a WP:BLP violation as well. The same section, however, might be acceptable in some circumstances if you titled it “Notable People”. Somepinkdude (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to read something I read more than six years ago … I committed a language mishap and I was about to correct it … You reverted in the selfsame minute.

Nice to see that with barely five months in here you are so eager to fight vandalism, just try to do it correctly, assume good faith and contextualize common sense mistakes.

Guess otherwise your eagerness won’t last much.

Bye and happy editing. CoryGlee (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somepinkdude

I respectfully contest this speedy deletion nomination. This article does not meet the criteria for CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) for the following reasons:

1. **Substantial encyclopedic content remains after removing promotional material**: The article includes a comprehensive “Controversies and verification issues” section (approximately 25% of total content) that critically examines the company’s claims, documents the absence of independent media coverage, notes Google Business suspension issues, and explicitly states that partnerships and financial claims are unverified. This critical analysis demonstrates the article serves an encyclopedic purpose beyond promotion.

2. **Neutral point of view and critical tone**: The article consistently uses neutral language such as “according to company materials,” “claims to,” and “purportedly,” rather than stating unverified assertions as facts. The article explicitly compares the company unfavorably to competitors (OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic) by noting it “has not achieved comparable public recognition, media coverage, or documented technical achievements.”

3. **Verifiable subject**: The company is a legitimate registered entity in the Norwegian business registry (organization number 936 049 575), verified through independent sources (Proff.no and NorthData). The company has operated since 2009 (16 years), demonstrating it is not a newly created promotional vehicle.

4. **Appropriate sourcing**: The article relies primarily on independent third-party sources including academic publications (Bostrom, Russell, Wooldridge, Amodei), business registries, and competitor websites. Company website citations are used sparingly (2 instances) and only to attribute claims explicitly marked as unverified.

5. **Deletion is not cleanup**: Per the CSD G11 guideline, “the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page’s subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion.” The article contains substantial encyclopedic content about the AI safety research field, Norwegian AI ecosystem context, and industry comparisons that would remain valuable even if all promotional material were removed.

The article may benefit from further editing to reduce emphasis on unverified claims, but it does not require deletion. The comprehensive critical analysis and verification issues documentation demonstrate clear encyclopedic value beyond promotion. I am willing to make additional edits to address any specific promotional concerns while preserving the encyclopedic content.

Thank you for your consideration Somepinkdude. WikiGenius2025 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Don’t use AI to generate talk messages; it doesn’t bode well for you.

2. I’ve had a look, and the draft is blatantly promotional. We’re not a vehicle for people to promote their companies.

Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a promotional Article, and as I have said it is my first article as an AI researcher in Norway about up and coming companies.

When I offer to clean what the promotional parts of the article are while maintaining valuable information about the AI progress outside of the giants I would assume this would be of high value as Norway has a lot happening here.

please give me guidance instead of brushing me off in a way where I have no capability of understanding how this works, instead of telling me what’s wrong can you please help me understand and fix how to do it correctly so more people than myself also learn? Thank you in advance. WikiGenius2025 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just write the article by yourself, add reliable sources, and your article will not be deleted. The article in its current state is promotional, unencyclopedic, and AI-generated. If you want more help, see Help:Your first article. Please don’t write about “up and coming companies”, as all articles must meet the notability guideline. Somepinkdude (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I wrote the entire draft and did use AI as almost all people do in this age to perfect it, I see now it had a negative impact, please allow this to stay open as I correct it within 48 Hours so the contest allows the corrected Wikipedia article without any promotional parts to be written about! The AI research is incredible in Norway and I understand a lot of people dislike the AI hype, so I am a journalist vetting out bad and good companies, however I do understand your point of view and will fix this all promptly. Thank you. I will read a lot before posting it again, time is 02:15 AM in Norway now so I would appreciate a day or 2 to ensure this is 100% corrected. WikiGenius2025 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, “as all people do” is simply incorrect. Look at the articles created by experienced Wikipedians, and most will show no signs of AI. Also, no amount of cleanup can fix the fact that you have a conflict of interest relating to the article, and creating articles about your business is strongly discouraged. Your article has been deleted as unreviewed AI content, so please do not recreate it until you have written the entire article without AI or plagiarism. Somepinkdude (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Somepinkdude! I’m bringing up the false positive reports noticeboard since I noticed you forgot to add your signature here. I’d recommend getting and using User:DreamRimmer/EFFPRH, since it makes responding to reports a lot easier. Happy editing 🙂 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Somepinkdude. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:This is wik, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing well-sourced material from the article. Please take a closer look, and please discuss on the article talk page, thank you. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for taking a second look and explaining in the edit history. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I do not understand the reason behind the decision to exclude my contributions. I had decided to introduce some changes in the page precisely to adress, in a very construtive way, the problems mentioned in the alerts existing over that page. Thus I decided to write neutral and factual texts, replacing the current list of functions, also reducing some of them, that may be considered too exagerated for the real importance of the personality. I also tried to find references and notes, in English, extracted from reliable sources. Did I use any non acceptable source? I am not an expert in Wikipedia. So please explain me what I did in a wrong way, in order to correct it. Or should I stop trying to colaborate? It is up to you. RA Noisiel RA Noisiel (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, @RA Noisiel: that was my mistake. I looked at the diff, and it showed cleanup tags being removed without explanation, but then of course AV reverted the whole series. I agree that you left the article better than it started, and you are free to revert it back. Somepinkdude (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Wikipeadia expert. Shall I re-write it again or is there a way to go back to the reverted text? RA Noisiel (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have already reverted back to your original revision, so there isn’t really anything else you have to do. The way to restore a revision is to click the “history” tab, click “edit” on the revision, and click “Publish changes”, which will revert it to that version. Alternatively, you can use Twinkle in some cases. Somepinkdude (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I am doing my best and I will be always open to suggestions. RA Noisiel (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the business category I was explaining were Usefulcharts sold there posters and in the Youtube section I explained some major events on the Usefulcharts YouTube Channel my edits were constructive and not disruptive. Due to these facts I believe my edits should be restored John George III (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]