User talk:Vinizex94: Difference between revisions

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Due to personal issues, Vinizex94 will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time.

Thanks for uploading File:Adidas Man Utd New Jersey.jpg. You don’t seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click “Edit this page” and add the tag to the image’s description. If there doesn’t seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. —ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pressed the wrong button at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santi Luna/Archive, meant to leave you an edit summary, sorry about that. Please don’t edit archived SPI case pages. When you’re adding your own perspective on an open SPI, please use the “Comments by other users” section to keep everything tidy. But please do keep commenting where you have something useful to add. The oldest SPIs marked as “open” or “request more info” are particularly helpful ones to target. — asilvering (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and definitely do not move SPI case pages. That’s clerk-only (if you do it by hand, you’ll mess up). Thanks. — asilvering (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved an SPI case page. If you were 1 minute early,you could’ve stopped me. Now what? Vinizex94🌍 11:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve fixed it, no worries. — asilvering (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. But I think an clerk should move it though.It reveals the real name of the sock. How can I note an clerk about it? Vinizex94🌍 11:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky for you, you’re speaking to one. What’s the rationale for moving the page, though? We typically name them after the oldest account. If someone’s used their real name as their username, they’ve already decided to make it public. Is there something I’m missing? — asilvering (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification dude. I understand the convention of naming SPI pages after the oldest account, even if it contains a real name. However, in this case, the current title of the page fully exposes the user’s real identity, which is why I suggested moving it to an account name that doesn’t reveal personal information.

Even if someone has chosen to use their real name as a username, BLP privacy and general privacy considerations recommend limiting unnecessary exposure of personally identifying details, especially in sensitive pages like SPI investigations and archives. Moving the page title to a different sockpuppet account helps protect privacy while keeping the investigation transparent and properly documented. Vinizex94🌍 11:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP privacy is a concern for article subjects, not editors. For editors, our policy is WP:OUTING. Since the editor created their username as their own name, there’s nothing that needs hiding. If you think there is any reason why it’s particularly bad for this person to have their name on an SPI case page, the people to contact would be WP:OS. But we don’t grant courtesy vanishing to sockpuppets as far as I’m aware, so I don’t think they’ll do anything about it in this case. They’d be the best ones to explain why not, though, so if you have concerns please do email them. — asilvering (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand the distinction you’re making with WP:OUTING, and that the username was self-chosen. My worry here isn’t really about outing in the strictest sense, but about how prominently the real name remains tied to a sockpuppetry case and its archive. That feels like disproportionate exposure compared to what’s necessary to document the case.

Would it be possible to simply retitle the case under one of the non-identifying sock names (ex- one of the later accounts), while keeping the content intact? That would still meet the need for transparency without unnecessarily tying the individual’s real-world name to a permanent SPI record.

If you don’t think that’s within clerk discretion, I’ll follow your advice and reach out to WP:OS for their input — but I thought I’d ask once more if a simple move could be considered here. Vinizex94🌍 12:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably is within clerk discretion, but I’d only be tempted to exercise that discretion if the person in question had made good and was no longer sockpuppeting. If OS says otherwise I would happily accede to whatever they say. — asilvering (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. I understand the need for caution. From what I can see in this case and its archive, the last confirmed sock activity was in 17 April,[we have to consider that this sock had been blocked in 25 January, 1 February [twice], 2 February, 4 February, 10 February, 01 March, 25 March, 04 April, 14 April and 17 April, and no sockpuppettry has been reported ever since, almost 5 Months now] and no new accounts have been identified since. That suggests the situation may have run its course.

Given that, I was hoping a simple retitle — without changing any of the case content — could be a proportionate step so the real-world name isn’t so prominently tied to a permanent SPI record. I appreciate that this isn’t outing in the strict sense, but it does raise a proportionality/BLP concern.

I can’t reach WP:OS by email right now due to a technical issue, so I’m trying to show (based on the record) that the socking appears to have ceased. If that’s still not enough for clerk discretion, I’ll defer to OS once I’m able to contact them hopefully, unless I won’t be able to do anything about it. Thanks for your support Vinizex94🌍 11:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would be waiting for the “made good” part before considering it on my own – that is, they’d have to successfully appeal their ban (they’ve hit WP:3X) and request that it be retitled. Five months is, I am sorry to say, a blink in the eye of many sockmasters. This one won’t be eligible for the WP:SO until October.

OS can be emailed through the “send email” function on Wikipedia or just directly emailed from your email address, if that helps. — asilvering (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for explaining. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify the clerk perspective here. I’ll leave it for Oversight to review if I’m able to contact them. Vinizex94🌍 10:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it’s no problem. And sorry about the comments. I just needed to leave an conclusion for CUs’. Thanks for the sup. Vinizex94🌍 11:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinizex94,

Thank you for creating No Era Amor.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please avoid Youtube, Spotify, Apple Music as these refs are NOT WP:RELIABLE sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Agent VII}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Australia men’s national soccer team

added a link pointing to Donald Robertson

New Zealand men’s national football team

added a link pointing to Donald Robertson

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Amor Na Praia.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. —Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 15:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Amor Na Praia.jpg. 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) 17:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australia–New Zealand cricket rivalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ODI.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vinizex94. Thank you for your work on Douglas Holgate. Another editor, Triptothecottage, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Additional sources that demonstrate notability and could be used to expand the page: [1][2][3]

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Triptothecottage}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Triptothecottage (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article No Era Amor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Era Amor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amor Na Praia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amor Na Praia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

UnregisteredBiohazard ☎ 06:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MrBeast NFL 2025 New Co-Owner Thumbnail.jpg. 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).

Thanks for your contributions to Lionel Voufack. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NO ERA AMOR(Super Slowed) – DJ Asul.mp3. 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).

Thanks for uploading File:No Era Amor.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).

Thanks for uploading File:Roaringkitty.webp. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file’s talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Amor Na Praia (Slowed).mp3. 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).

Thanks for uploading File:Amor Na Praia cover.jpg. 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).

Thank you for uploading File:Australia vs new zealand cricket.webp. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Melbourne City Victory.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

A tag has been placed on File:Naagin derby.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

Thank you for uploading File:Welsh Fire fans at Cardiff.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Vinizex94 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I find it so obvious for an admin to block an editor who used ChatGPT to create citations. But one thing they have to know, is that I only used ChatGPT to add citations, not to generate articles in whole. I reviewed the references that didn’t exist and later I took it for granted. The reason for me to use AI instead of doing research myself is obvious and understandable to anyone – It saved me a lot of screentime and hassle. But now, I regret it. This is absoulutely my fault and I’m asking for an unblock because then, I’d be able to clean up the mess I left behind. I believe that I should just make simple edits instead of creating complicated articles with help from AI. My intend was not vandalizing Wikipedia, but improving it, though many people get carried away using AI. I also hope that an admin would review this immediately, because of my personal issues. Vinizex94🌍 12:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I find it so obvious for an admin to block an editor who used ChatGPT to create citations. But one thing they have to know, is that I only used ChatGPT to add citations, not to generate articles in whole. I reviewed the references that didn't exist and later I took it for granted. The reason for me to use AI instead of doing research myself is obvious and understandable to anyone - It saved me a lot of screentime and hassle. But now, I regret it. This is absoulutely my fault and I'm asking for an unblock because then, I'd be able to clean up the mess I left behind. I believe that I should just make simple edits instead of creating complicated articles with help from AI. My intend was not ''vandalizing'' Wikipedia, but improving it, though many people get carried away using AI. I also hope that an admin would review this immediately, because of my personal issues.    <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-10deg;color:teal">'''[[User:Vinizex94|Vinizex94]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:10deg;color:teal">[[User talk:Vinizex94|🌍]]</span> 12:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I find it so obvious for an admin to block an editor who used ChatGPT to create citations. But one thing they have to know, is that I only used ChatGPT to add citations, not to generate articles in whole. I reviewed the references that didn't exist and later I took it for granted. The reason for me to use AI instead of doing research myself is obvious and understandable to anyone - It saved me a lot of screentime and hassle. But now, I regret it. This is absoulutely my fault and I'm asking for an unblock because then, I'd be able to clean up the mess I left behind. I believe that I should just make simple edits instead of creating complicated articles with help from AI. My intend was not ''vandalizing'' Wikipedia, but improving it, though many people get carried away using AI. I also hope that an admin would review this immediately, because of my personal issues.    <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-10deg;color:teal">'''[[User:Vinizex94|Vinizex94]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:10deg;color:teal">[[User talk:Vinizex94|🌍]]</span> 12:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I find it so obvious for an admin to block an editor who used ChatGPT to create citations. But one thing they have to know, is that I only used ChatGPT to add citations, not to generate articles in whole. I reviewed the references that didn't exist and later I took it for granted. The reason for me to use AI instead of doing research myself is obvious and understandable to anyone - It saved me a lot of screentime and hassle. But now, I regret it. This is absoulutely my fault and I'm asking for an unblock because then, I'd be able to clean up the mess I left behind. I believe that I should just make simple edits instead of creating complicated articles with help from AI. My intend was not ''vandalizing'' Wikipedia, but improving it, though many people get carried away using AI. I also hope that an admin would review this immediately, because of my personal issues.    <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-10deg;color:teal">'''[[User:Vinizex94|Vinizex94]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:10deg;color:teal">[[User talk:Vinizex94|🌍]]</span> 12:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment