User talk:Realtent

Hello, Realtent, and welcome to Wikipedia ! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Bgv. (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Great job on your efforts in article cleanup and issuing the appropriate warnings, keep it up!

I notice that you've been undoing and warning users manually, so I thought I'd suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools for some tools that help automate some of the process. My personal go-to is WP:TWINKLE, which is one of the more commonly used tools, but there's a mountain of other options available. Not a requirement obviously, but I find it a lot easier to just click a button to undo edits or issue warning templates.

Regardless, thanks for helping keep Wikipedia the best it can be! 😊

LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) 05:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the pointer! Been getting the hang of them already, and can definitely say it's easier than manual methods Realtent (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wonderful to hear! If you ever have any questions, my talk page is open :) LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) 15:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Regarding the below on the Mukah article, and the other 2 reversions you made:

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Mukah, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Realtent (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply][reply ]

Why did you add this non-notable entry back into the encyclopedia? Which parts of wikipedia's Notability guidelines for location articles are you completely ignoring? In which year did these well-known Notability guidelines go into effect? I'd really like to know. ~2026-20184-73 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please advise when you have fixed these 3 articles back to how they appeared before the vandals added their own names. ~2026-20184-73 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I replied to you on your talk page. Please don't keep asking me on my talk page too. Realtent (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, calling other editors 'vandals' is a personal attack, and I would advise you to strike that Realtent (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the assistance and the well wishes. And thanks for the continued great countervandalism work, keep ot up! ❤️ LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) 01:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You mentioned that I edited a bio without sourcing - the citation was the SEC. The information paraphrased is entirely from the US Securities & Exchange Commission. I dont understand how that is not a reliable source? All information added was factual and reported. SaltLakeSnape (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please keep discussion to one page, and see my reply on your user talk; As stated, it is a Wikipedia:BLPCRIME violation as he has not been charged in a court of law. Realtent (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Out of curiosity, how did you find the source on Special:Diff/1349073202? I looked up various snippets of the addition, but evidently my googling skill is lacking. LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) 16:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've been using Earwig's Copyvio Detector which is a tool specifically for finding them! It's been very helpful for the few times I've used it. Realtent (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh cool, I'll need to save that. Thanks! LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) 16:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! Is there a more specific reason as to why the links to his professional works have been deemed "inappropriate" for encyclopedia? These edits are made in accordance with his actual birthdate and in conjunction with his official IMDb page.

Thank you for your time! TiernanDunagan (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

First of all, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. You must disclose these things on you user page, user talk page, and edit summaries, and are strongly discouraged from editing the page. As per the links, the section is only for an official website, and editors are advised to not link externally to social networking sites as per Wikipedia:NOSOCIAL. Realtent (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In response to your edited question, please read Wikipedia:IMDB. Realtent (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@TiernanDunagan please don't edit your comments after they've been replied to in the future. LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) 17:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Realtent. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2026年05月31日. 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! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I noticed you deleted my edit. I forgot to include reliable source to this change, I have now been harshly blocked without getting the chance to re-do this.

if you are able to add this in for me I’d be more than happy for you to add it in for me properly.

His father was one of four men who painted the roof of Ayresome Park, the former home of Middlesbrough F.C., for a sponsored Heritage Hampers advertisement. The huge display earned a place in the Guinness World Records in 1989 as the largest advertising boarding in the world—making it a fitting family link now that his son plays for the club.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1368452575303968&id=100064177143678 ~2026-21790-46 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Facebook stories are self published and not considered reliable. Also, please request this change on the Article talk page, not here. Realtent (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also it doesn't say you've been blocked, at least on my end. Whether you are blocked or not, discuss at the article talk page before adding, and please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Realtent (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(talk page stalker) @~2026-21790-46 You don't appear to be blocked on this account. If you've been blocked on another account, then you are currently evading that block. Please do not make any further edits, and instead submit an unblock request on your original account's talk page as described at WP:UNBLOCK. You should not be asking other editors to proxy edit on your behalf. LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) 15:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not presently able to review your email, though I know it concerns a potential emergency, please email the emergency team at WP:EMERGENCY. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Already did! Thank you for your response (and sorry I emailed you too, the policy says message an admin privately and I saw you were active) Realtent (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC) Realtent (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We are agreeing both that the Luma Operations 1912 was inconclusive right ? But please can you warn @Shadow4ya because he is changing editing without any sources BB4LIFE TT (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please read Talk:Luma Operations (1912)#My contribution: I'm not well read on this topic, so I'm not agreeing with you, but I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply stepping out, so you should discuss with them. Realtent (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Because some sources says that it was Albanian victory(non Albanian sources) and some say Serbian victory (only serbian sources) BB4LIFE TT (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know if that is true or not. Go talk to the other editors on the talk page and come to a consensus with them. I'm stepping out. Realtent (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Realtent I can't post on the report page but you might want to add more evidence: BB4LIFE TT same behavior as previous socks. Edits to sandbox then edit warring on infobox result [1] [2]

Making same changes to the article as previously blocked users. [3] [4]

I reported to an admin. OK, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26874-98 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've added it now, thank you! Realtent (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Just to let you know I am the one who made the last change you reverted. I am not NormalGuy. But I am not going to revert you since I take your point. But in your attempt to reach a middle ground with the sock, the result section now conflicts and contradicts with the article itself, as the text in the article states that Serbian forces defeated the insurgents and successfully conquered the region.. but the infobox states inconclusive. So you might want to restore it to the stable version once the sock is blocked and article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26912-65 (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

okay so first of all by claiming that is serbian victory is only serbian sources but also non albanian sources it says that it was serbian victory so which one to believe ? Non serbian sources or serbian sources ? It should stay inconclusive the result ~2026-27003-38 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

and read the text in the end it was diplomatic withdrawal for Serbia MK6771980 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Realtent, and thank you for your note. This issue has been discussed previously and agreed upon by several trusted editors. Let me explain why we believe this content should be removed as vandalism. 1. It reads more like campaign-style language that could undermine a candidacy, rather than a balanced, encyclopedic summary. 2. Given that Grynspan is actively campaigning for Secretary-General of the United Nations, we should be especially careful to maintain neutrality and avoid undue weight. 3. There are also sourcing issues. Inner City Press appears to be a one-person operation and functions more like a blog, which raises questions about whether it meets Wikipedia’s reliable sources standards. It is heavily relied upon in this section—one citation is repeated multiple times, and variations of "Inner City Press reported..." appear frequently. This creates an overreliance on a single source. 4. Additionally, some other references seem to be used by Blackandyellow412 in a way that goes beyond what they actually support, with the subject only mentioned in passing. That suggests possible synthesis or original interpretation, which is not appropriate. I understand the concerns raised by editors who have challenged this content. As it stands, the section is too long, not fully neutral in tone, and not supported by a strong range of independent sources for example more than 8 references from a single blogger raises a question. For these reasons, I don’t support restoring it in its current form, as it also appears to fall short of Wikipedia’s core content policies on neutrality and verifiability. I’m also concerned about the contributor’s pattern of edits, which seem to undermine women candidates for UN Secretary-General. Before anything is restored, the content would need to be rewritten in a more balanced way and supported by stronger sourcing, in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Vanbert11 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your response, I'm not super familiar with the topic and am busy most of today so you should probably talk with the other editors. Because of this I have no comment at this moment on the content of the page, so please do not count me as any consensus for or against the content. Also, please only ping me on one page, like the talk page. Realtent (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC) Realtent (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Realtent, nobody is asking for you to be "super familiar" with the topic. All that is required is that you use the tools you choose wisely. As it says:

icon You take full responsibility for any actions taken using Interceptor. You must read and abide by all relevant Wikipedia policies when using this tool; failure to do so may result in being blocked from editing.

The net effect is that you have participated in an ongoing EDITWAR on Rebeca Grynspan (hist ), using your newly granted​ permission which you've had for less than a week. Please account for your re-addition of poorly sourced material to the BLP. Please account for ignoring the ongoing discussions on the article's talk page. Preferably a more cogent answer than "it was a big edit". Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, that one's on me. Should've reviewed the talk page and checked the page history, as well as the content. I've self reverted now.

I don't know how the revoking permissions process works but this feels fair game for rollback perms to be removed if that's something you feel is necessary. Realtent (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So long as you've taken on board what went wrong then let's put it down as a learning, growing experience. Cabayi (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why can't I edit it St Pari (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please read the notice on your talk page:

"if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page M. Tamilkudimagan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic."

"We ask that you avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;"

Realtent (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

ok then how will I update this page St Pari (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You can suggest edits and changes to make on the article's talk page. Realtent (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Realtent (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

who should I tell it and how St Pari (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You should go to Talk:M. Tamilkudimagan and create an edit request, add {{edit COI}} to the beginning of your edit request and follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Edit requests, including being specific (change/replace X with Y, add X, remove X), and providing reliable sources to back up any content additions.

Somebody will see your edit request, maybe not immediately but eventually, and will accept the change and add the content to the article, or reject it and explain to you why they rejected it. Realtent (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

thank u St Pari (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm still learnings the conventions of Wikipedia, so excuse me if this isn't the appropriate place to post this. That said, I want to share this feeddback I left on Don Norman's article in response to removal of my edits from Realtent. Documenting as a safeguard to prevent any future pattern of such behavior emerging...

Thank you for sharing your reasoning; I appreciate the feedback. The 2022 University of Michigan article by Jaci Wilkinson would have gone through multiple levels of academic review and approval, as scholarly publications do. Since publication, it has been downloaded hundreds of times and viewed more than 21,000 times. Similarly, the 2023 Fast Company article, "The Problem With Don Norman," was written by award-winning global design writer and editor Mark Wilson. The article captures critical comments from several notable people within the UX and product development community including Bill Verplank, Luiza Prado, Carrie Sawyer, and Vivianne Castillo. In an era where defamation claims are taken seriously, the fact that the article remains published years later is itself is a sign of its credibility.

As a survivor, I’ve experienced firsthand how quickly people who speak out are labeled "uncredible" or "unhinged;" especially women and double especially black women. When well-established, credible sources discussing misconduct are repeatedly edited out of public narratives, it compounds this gaslighting dynamic that reinforces women being silenced and harmed, allowing misconduct to fester. Again, I respectfully ask that you and other [I'm assuming male editors] stop removing sourced material related to documented criticisms from credible sources surrounding Norman from his narrative. More broadly, this pattern appears connected to the protection and mythologizing of influential UX male thought leaders, including figures like Don Norman, Eric Reiss, and Dan Ariely, who has been widely criticized for his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

I recognize I may not always express these concerns perfectly, particularly given my experiences as a woman in tech and someone living with CPTSD related in part to sexual misconduct I experienced while working in the industry. But the swift removal of my edits, I believe, helps illustrate how misconduct against women in professional settings is so often followed by protection of perpetrators while women harmed are left in a perpetual state of being triggered and fearful of speaking out publicly. ~2026-21446-99 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-21446-99 (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

See my response on Talk:Don Norman, and please keep discussion there. Realtent (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "rollbacker" (Rollbackers) will expire on 00:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I believe that the photo of Scott Pelley needs to be updated for 2026, as it has not changed in the last 12 years. Please consider using one from his recent NYT interview to keep it current and updated to match his current overall appearance. JonasGroanus (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(talk page stalker) Hey @JonasGroanus, unfortunately most images are copyrighted, which means that Wikipedia can't use them. I'm not seeing an indication that any of the images in the NYT interview have been released under a license we can use. WP:Image use policy may be useful reading. LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) In solidarity 22:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, Larry. I did take a couple pictures of him during the interview via screenshots, but I’m not sure if that would still be copyrighted since they came from the interview. What do you think? JonasGroanus (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Laffy, sorry lol

JonasGroanus (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That would still indeed be a copyright violation, see WP:SCAN. LaffyTaffer 💬(they/she) In solidarity 22:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedians who received barnstars for fighting vandalism