User talk:Werran

Welcome!

Hello, Werran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Amigao. I noticed that you recently removed content from Xinjiang without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amigao (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not "removing" content from Xinjiang, I am "editing", and here is the explanation:

The edits were made to improve neutrality and source attribution. The previous version relied heavily on Western NGOs and media, with limited inclusion of official or academic perspectives. The main changes are:

1. Added official and international viewpoints while retaining critical sources.
2. Clearly distinguished different types of sources (NGOs, government, academics) to avoid presenting disputed claims as facts.
3. Adjusted wording to neutral expressions such as “according to…” or “some observers say,” reducing undue weight.
4. Fixed citation templates to ensure technical correctness without changing content.

Overall, the goal is to make the section more balanced, neutral, and compliant with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards, while accurately reflecting multiple viewpoints. Lavender Poison※Leaf 19:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Xinjiang did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Amigao (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, but I noticed that despite my edit summary on the Serfdom in Tibet controversy article, it was still undid by you. Lavender Poison※Leaf 18:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Chipmunkdavis. A comment that you recently posted seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Editors should not use LLMs to write comments generatively. Communication is at the root of Wikipedia's decision-making process, and it is presumed that editors possess the ability to come up with their own ideas. Your comment may have been collapsed per the relevant guideline. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CMD (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I use LLM to translate to English, not generate. Lavender Poison※Leaf 08:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

LLM translations can often embellish of alter the wording in a way that makes them read quite llm-generated, they should be used with caution. CMD (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:AITALK. - Amigao (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I rewrote it by myself, and as the AItalk page, "Comments, nominations, and opening statements that are obviously generated (not merely refined) by a large language model or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed with Collapse AI top." I just merely refined by LLM. Lavender Poison※Leaf 16:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amigao (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you sign your comments 'Lavender Poison', although your username is 'Werran'. This is quite confusing. Per WP:SIGPROB, would you please change either your name or signature so that they match better. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:HERE, you should probably demonstrate some interest in the improvement of the encyclopedia than just bludgeoning for POVs. It should be clear by now that not much experienced users (by that I mean zero) is agreeing with you, and you're unlikely to get what you want by continuing the same behaviour. Also, I saw you have global IP block exemption status, though you're also claiming to live in England. Per principle of least privilege, you probably don't need IPBE anymore from now...? ~2026-39545-05 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, they've noted elsewhere that they're Chinese and the infoboxes are old, from when they were in university there. That's irrelevant to the rest, however. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply