Jump to content

User talk:S0091

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question about your edits

[edit]

Hi! I saw that you made some editing on the page Undetectable.ai. There has been an important section that sockpuppets have been trying to remove. Wikipedia rules say that any edits by the sockpuppets can be reverted. I do not want to revert your edits, because you removed a lot of inappropriate information, but I also think this section is important. Let me know if it is possible to restore one section with sources and avoid removing your edits. Maybe for the purpose of protection the page, it would be good to consider a protection for the page, so the section is not removed again. Convictions for drugs and attempted murder are serious.

Here is a dispute about it - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=1225020614#Summary_of_dispute_by_Comintell

Here is the comment made by editor who left it.

  • curprev 03:47, 9 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs  12,654 bytes +1,489  I created a controversies section, partially taken from an existing page on actor Devan Leos who is also the CMO of Undetectable AI using sources that were already approved for that page. I also added to this the criminal history of the founder and CEO Christian Perry and provided the court record as a source.

Here is the links to his cited version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Undetectable.ai&oldid=1217994890

Here is the text that was removed:

Controversies

In 2016, Devan Leos, the CMO of Undetectable AI was attacked by an individual allegedly wielding a knife, and he attempted to defend himself by using his vehicle. Leos was then charged with attempted murder, however given the facts of the case, he was only sentenced to community service. On November 10th 2023, Devan Leos was accused by Radar Online of enabling students to cheat on their assignments, by helping operate the online platform Undetectable.ai, however in the article, Leos clarified that Undetectable.ai strictly prohibited such conduct.

CEO of Undetectable AI, Christian Perry was found guilty of Controlled Substance-Possession With Intent Manufacture or Deliver. This raises ethical and security concerns over key figures in the company. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mainecoon1111 reverting my edits would do no good because the content about Leos was not there when I made my edits and you certainly should not revert all the way back to 2024.
Even so, there's severe issues with that content. I am not going to list all them as there are many but off the top, it violates Wikipedia's strict WP:Biographies of living people (BLP) policy which covers any content about a living a person anywhere on Wikipedia, even here on this talk page, and the non-negotiable WP:Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. Looking at the version you linked from back in 2024, the sources are either WP:BLPPRIMARY (court docs which are not allowed for BLPs) or otherwise poor (tabloids) and likely also violates WP:BLPCRIME. On top of that, even if sources were stronger, the content is likely WP:UNDUE. It comes across as a WP:COATRACK to include negative information about someone associated with Undetectable.ai that has had no real impact on the actual platform. Unless there are impeccable sources, such as multiple high-quality national news outlets or similar, that have written about how Leos' legal troubles have impacted Undetectable.ai, it absolutely should not be included. Period. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I was thinking myself that a revision of edits cannot work because that section is from some time ago. As to the tabloids, that does not mean that information is not reliable, as those cite the primary sources, which are the authorities, And the authorities are the main reliable source for crimes. There are endless reports for scam of this entity - https://www.bbb.org/us/wy/sheridan/profile/computer-software/undetectable-llc-0805-46148287/complaints and obviously fake 5 star reviews, to hide over 200 real testimonies about it being a scam. https://www.trustpilot.com/review/undetectable.ai. It is so funny to read. There are no reviews in between. Just 5 starts with nonsense that does not make sense and actual 1 star reviews with detailed explanation how people lost their money. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mainecoon1111 what you are doing is WP:Original research (OR) which is not allowed here and again there are other issues. The TMZ article makes no mention of Undetectable so useless to use in article about Undetectable and the Radar article make no mention of his legal trouble (and based almost entirely on what he say so also an issue). You cannot use the two to make any statements connecting one to the other as that is your own personal analysis. The BBB, like court docs, is a primary source so not allowed nor is Trustpilot as it is user-generated. As I have stated what you need are high-quality BLP compliant WP:reliable sources that have written about Leos, his legal issues, how that has impacted Undetectable.ai and it needs to explicit and even then it might still violate WP:BLPCRIME and/or be deemed WP:UNDUE. If such sources do not exist, even a discussion about including the content is a waste of time. Really, you just need to move on. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock of WestwoodHights573. S0091 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please run an eye over this

[edit]

Their conribtons record, especially once expanded, shows variable quality use of AFC/R. Your eyes on this would be informative. I'm either bamboozling myself or, well, not. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Timtrent, I am pretty sure I've looked at them before but nothing jumps out at me sock wise. Their location is consistent, no proxy use it seems, etc. This appears to be simply be an WP:AGF returning AFC/R customer. Surprising I know given all the abuse at AFCR. There's one that went for a long stretch requesting redirects regarding presidents of universities (i.e. List of University X presidents redirecting to the appropriate section in the main article). Are they making bad requests or anything like that? (Separate topic, you might be amused by this...now that's a sock for sure.) S0091 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That separate topic is cute. I think it proves that you are now a true Wikipedian! I just get occasional abuse. You are the real deal!
With the main topic, I am often able to self bamboozle. Some of their requests appear to be to have disconnected redirect titles from the target article. Or it might be heavy dosage of codeine right now, which is why my activity level has dipped! I am not thinking sock so much as odd. No, not odd socks! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, S0091. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Charles Dumont (cyclist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 4

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 12:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

[edit]
  • Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident?
    A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?

Books & Bytes – Issue 73

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026
  • Four new partnerships
  • User survey thanks
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 5

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 22:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Charles Dumont".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Paul van Dijk

[edit]

Information icon Hello, S0091. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Paul van Dijk, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need help plz.

[edit]

What do I do if I need to add a template that says article is too short? Y64dawin (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2026

[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 6

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 22:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 7

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 22:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out

[edit]

So it has to be a proven source of the Deceased individual and it has to be verified? May you help explain that to me? I would like to know how information gets verified. ButteyFelicity (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

[edit]

@Soo91 The topic of Good and Babbitt was closed and the person made it seem I was calling her death a happy end. In reality I was saying that the administration had demonized her by calling her a domestic terrorist (which isn’t true) and I was saying that the public rallied against it by remembering her and her values. Hence why Happy End because there was a happy end with people remembering her and showing her humanity. ButteyFelicity (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you carefully read WP:AGF which I believe you have violated on more than one recent occasion. Also, avoid citing the likes of OR, NPOV, CIV to experienced editors as they rarely engage in such. Your experience here is a tiny fraction of those with whom you are debating, and in highly contentious topics. That doesn't, in itself, mean you are incorrect. Spend more time listening to what they say instead of quickly reacting. We all started with no experience. Although most of us started in noncontentious articles. But we still had to grow into a full understanding of the sometimes esoteric policies and guidelines. And we had to learn to assume good faith by those with whom we disagree. The most common advice to new editors is to begin with non-contentious articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ButteyFelicity if you want show or discuss someone's humanity or a happy end, do so on your own website or some other forum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which simply summarizes what reliable sources state in a neutral manner. What an editor thinks, feels, etc. about a topic does not matter and such discussions have no place here. S0091 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what I was discussing about. I was making a statement on how the deaths of Babbitt and Good were being compared and demonized to the media and how Good and Babbitt got overwhelming support in the end.
I may point out there is an error on Goods page. Someone put: “Good began to drive forward while turning the steering wheel to the right and away from Ross, the correct direction of traffic on the one-way street.”   calling it the "correct" direction, the writer is taking a side or making a judgment call. Using the word "correct" is an editorial judgment. It frames the driver's actions as legally compliant or "right," which is a central point of contention in the legal and public debate surrounding this case.
  • If the video analysis (like those cited by The New York Times) specifically concludes the wheel was turned away, the sentence is fine.
  • However, if the editor is looking at the video and deciding for themselves that she was turning away, that is Original Research. On Wikipedia, you cannot describe what you see in a video; you can only describe what reliable secondary sources say they see in the video.
ButteyFelicity (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 61 is actually a link to four cites. The article text agrees with the cites. This kind of discussion belongs on the article TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 April 2026

[edit]

Your draft article, Draft:Paul van Dijk

[edit]

Hello, S0091. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Paul van Dijk".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 8

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 04:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 9

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 19:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]