User talk:LWG

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

LLM

Hi, Thank you very much for your message. What exactly should I do? If this is how things are, I would prefer not to continue participating. My activity will not continue. Still, if there is anything I need to do, please let me know. Thank you Balash-Vologases (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

If you plan to step away from Wikipedia for a while there isn't really anything you need to do. If you decide to try to continue editing, you should apologize for any confusion or problems, promise not to use LLMs at all going forward, and maybe start contributing using smaller edits and making sure to use edit summaries and talk pages to explain what you are doing and why, and saying what sources you found your information in, so you can rebuild confidence in your editing. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 21:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

... , and maybe start contributing using smaller edits ...

This cannot be overstated. Make smaller edits that show your work, don't just plunk in giant edits that don't explain how you have made your edits. This happens when people ask an LLM to generate edits for them and paste it in, because there is no work to be shown. When people edit themselves, they save often and frequently, both to be able to backtrack themselves and check their own work for mistakes and also because that is just a natural impulse. No reasonable person sits down and writes half an article without saving their progress. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Some people prefer to write offline and paste in a finished product, rather than showing their errors along the way, so it's incorrect to say "no reasonable person". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

They would still save their work, they'd just save it locally.

Of course we can't see that, but any reasonable person would still save their work as they are working on it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Face (sociological concept)

Hi, do you fancy writing an essay on this? I keep coming across it and it'd be good to educate people, I can help w the essay if wanted Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

A solution I've found is to not gun for a humiliating admission of past misconduct, instead obtain a promise not to do the behaviour in the future (inline w WP:PREVENTATIVE). See [1] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been kicking that idea around for a while now, but real life is pretty busy at the moment and I hate it when my mainspace contrib percentage drops below 80%. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 19:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

80%! Jeez, before getting dragged into AI cleanup (back when I used to write content, good times) I aimed for 40-50% for the month and even then had to sometimes force myself to stop pissing about in project space. No worries, I might have a go writing something at some point, but don't count on it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE detail on individual cases of sex abuse

Hi, many of your recent edits re-introduce lurid detail about sex abuse allegations on pages concerning Catholic dioceses. I, along with other editors, find this to be problematic. Let me share a few thoughts about the matter.

1. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery," says WP:UNDUE. These details are examples of a depth of detail which is provocative and unduly prominent, considering that the Wikipedia pages are about entire dioceses, that is: huge subjects. The various sexual misdeeds are a micro-granular level of detail, given on Wikipedia pages which often treat entire centuries with just a few sentences.

2. As for naming the gender: what, precisely, is the legal difference between molesting minors of one gender compared with another? Both acts are equally reprehensible. I find a certain agenda at work here. To compare, I consulted the article on D4vd and found this expression: "... charged with first-degree murder, lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14." Why was the minor's gender not specified in this case?

3. Sourcing. Much of these highly specific details are from regional newspapers written by unknown journalists. The stories are no longer online, but taken from www.bishop-accountability.org. This site is run by activists with their own agenda, and I am uncomfortable using it if it is the only sourcing we have. There is a clear agenda behind these platforms. --Melchior2006 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. I disagree that specifying the age or gender of a victim when the sources do so is a "lurid detail". When the information you guys removed was a lurid detail with poor sourcing (for example, names of non-notable victims, insinuating hints where no legal action was taken, editorial language like "the Diocese said __, however...") I generally agreed with you guys' changes. Also when you guys edited to be more aligned with the cited source (e.g. the source just said "minor", or the source used used specific legal terms and the article amplified them to graphic descriptions) I also generally agreed with your edits and left them alone.

For the question of the bishop-accountability website, that's above my pay grade. I would recommend bringing that question to the reliable sources noticeboard and asking how that source should be treated.

The main issue from my perspective is that the other editor (not you) made a large number of edits with edit summaries like "copy editing" or "reduce wordiness", yet when examined those edits had a clear pattern of ideological change to the content (and indeed introduced as many grammar errors as they fixed). Even if the content changes are correct, it is dishonest to call them copy editing and comes across as an attempt to avoid scrutiny, which inclines me to revert and ask them to obtain consensus for their changes. Hopefully it's not inappropriate for me to quote scripture here: "For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.” - John 3:20-21 RSV-CI -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 14:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tonel (unit)

Hello, LWG,

Thank you for creating Tonel (unit).

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

A page sourced to a single 19th century source is not appropriate. We require two or more reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic are required.

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|Boynamedsue}}. 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.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Boynamedsue, I translated that article from the Spanish wiki due to it being a redlink here, but got interrupted before I could bring the translated text up to enwiki standards (for clarity of attribution I try not to make substantive changes while translating). I have extensively rewritten the article and added several sources and I believe it should be an acceptable stub now. Thanks for all you do! -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 18:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that. The two modern sources gave significant coverage so I've marked the as reviewed.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2026 (UTC)