Recent discussion on Talk:Hyperdimension_Neptunia#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_Hyperdimension_Neptunia_characters that you might be interested. Thanks. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
In File:HappyAllRestaurantHoustonTX.JPG did I type in the correct Chinese characters for the restaurant?
BTW I think I got the correct characters for File:MetropoleCenterHoustonTX.jpg but I would like to double-check...
Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Benlisquare, sorry to bother you as I know you are probably busy, but I want to follow up on our Han Taiwanese discussion. The creator of the Han Taiwanese article Lysimachi has added a lot of citation tags to the Han Chinese article, such as this [1] and many more (the user has added a lot more citation needed tags). While I have no problem with adding tags to unsourced statements, some of the sentences Lysimachi added tags to are fairly obvious knowledge and now paragraphs after paragraphs are flooded with tags. I'm not sure if Lysimachi is trying to do this to show that Han Chinese/term doesn't exist, or other reasons, but the over flooding of tags is a bit strange. What do you think?-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 23:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you really know the definition of dialect?
I'm in the UK now. Most british classmates agree with me, they say Welsh is another language, dialect is the same language that you can communicate with each other, but the accent or pronunciation of some words may be a little different. That's why I always tell others we should call Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese different Chinese languages, not dialects.
Can you communicate with someone if you speak Mandarin but he/she speaks Cantonese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwu889 ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Many linguistics experts in the west, such as Victor H. Mair, refer to Chinese varieties as "Chinese languages" instead, on the basis that there is as much difference between spoken Mandarin and spoken Cantonese than French and Spanish. Conversely, however, those such as Jerry Norman argue that it makes no sense to refer to Mandarin, Cantonese and Hokkien as languages based on the mutual unintelligibility argument because they themselves are language groups with local geographic variants that may not be mutually intelligible with one another (e.g. Hong Kong Cantonese is not mutually intelligible with Cantonese varieties from a wide number of rural Guangdong villages further north). John DeFrancis similarly argues that Chinese varieties cannot be "dialects" due to lack of mutual intelligibility, but cannot be called "languages" either as there is a historic lack of dividing force (e.g. religious, economic, political) to keep them separated.
Note that in the 1930s there was a similar case in Japan, where the Japanese government officially considered Korean and Palauan (see South Pacific Mandate) as dialects of Japanese due to political reasons, and even today the Japanese government considers Ryukyuan languages dialects of Japanese, even though they are not mutually intelligible with Japanese and western linguists consider them a separate language group.
Ultimately, I feel as though the disagreement has more to do with national identity rather than a scientific rationalisation of the aspects of language. Nevertheless, Wikipedia refers to them as Varieties of Chinese, mainland Chinese scholars call them "dialects", and many scholars outside of China call them "Chinese languages". A language is a dialect with an army and navy probably applies here as well. Previous discussions on Wikipedia relating to the issue of Chinese languages and dialects include this, this, this, this; there could be more discussions that I've missed. -- benlisquare T• C• E 04:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Accessibility to Chinese print publications is quite difficult as there aren't many internet resources that are reliable by Wikipedia's standards and freely provide the content free of charge (I don't even think Chinese journals use the DOI system). There probably are a few Chinese online websites that discuss the issue of Chinese dialects/languages, but many fall within the realm of non-RS due to being of questionable quality (poor editorial control, resembles more of something from the blogosphere, etc). -- benlisquare T• C• E 14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Babel | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 898 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
... six years now -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I can not speak English very well, so please allow me to talk with you in Chinese.Thanks. | |||
|
|||
由于在下英文不好,所以请允许我用中文跟您交流,谢谢。 |
我之前看到
Chinese Wikipedia这个条目(article)的第二段“The Chinese Wikipedia is the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia after Hudong Baike (互动百科), Baidu Baike (百度百科) and Soso Baike (搜搜百科).
”有一个
来源请求(
Citation needed)的标记,所以就进行了修改。然后刚刚发现了阁下对我的编辑进行了
回退(
undo),所以想问一下您的回退原因是?
我对那一段的编辑原因是:我不认为中文维基百科是“第四大的网络中文百科全书(the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia)”。
首先,我认为这个排序没有意义,而且这个排序也缺乏来源,至少我目前找不到有对中文网络百科全书的排序。如果要我排列的话,我认为中文维基百科至少应该有“第二大(the second largest)”,甚至是“最大(the largest)”。因为我认为这个排序的依据是多方面的,不能单纯从使用人数来排列,还应该综合使用范围。百度百科、搜搜百科、互动百科的主要使用者是来自 中华人民共和国大陆地区。而中文维基百科的主要使用者除了来自 中华人民共和国大陆地区,还来自 香港、 澳门和 台湾地区,还有一部分来自 Malaysia(马来西亚)以及 Singapore(新加坡)。所以中文维基百科的使用者很广,比搜搜百科、百度百科和互动百科广。
其次,在 中文版本中,也没有提及排名第四这个问题。
所以,我就对那句话进行了修改。如果阁下认为在下的修改不妥,也欢迎阁下提出其他的修改建议。谢谢!
以上です。 -- Dqwyy ( talk) 06:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
分地區有個問題:大部分英文讀者不會特別明白為什麼我們分地區。別忘記,大部分西方人不太了解兩岸情況,也不怎麼了解馬新半島的語言情況——我們知道這些,因為我們關心這些東西。對於西方讀者的要求,他們的數量比較最容易了解的就是所有中文百科的排名,最簡單寫出來誰大誰小,不分地區。這樣是最自然的比較方法,大部分英文百科讀者不關心這些地區政治,這些互聯網百科都是"Chinese"的,不是嗎?
因為大陸人口最大,這些大陸百科他們編輯者多是肯定的,然後照樣編輯者多就條目寫得多。中文維基百科沒有那麼多,因為大陸以外的地區人口沒那麼多,然後也有中共的防火牆限制大陸編輯者寫條目。如果我們在這個條目中分開大陸的百科和其他地區的百科,這樣看起來好像我們故意的想強調中文維基百科的重要性。 -- benlisquare T• C• E 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, can you take a look at these new articles Hokkien and Hoklo Americans and Hakka Americans.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 00:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Benlisquare.
I see there has been absolutely no movement towards a Wikipedia for Mongolian Traditional Script. This is despite the fact that:
[ [2]]
103.229.121.33 ( talk) 12:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Rainbow Ruby earned something in China.... Also read zh:维基百科讨论:Guestbook for non-Chinese speakers#Rainbow Ruby in PRC.
Glad I found someone fluent in both Chinese and English, and may know the Mainland China very well. (I can recognise some Chinese characters, but I'm not fully fluent in Mandarin at all.)
Anyway, here's the tasks I think you can do on the matter.
Additionally, you may expand both Rainbow Ruby article at the English Wikipedia and 彩虹宝宝 article at the Chinese-language Wikipedia a bit. 58.123.222.52 ( talk) 15:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll begin with less or not-so controversial ones, like the show receiving entertainment awards. -- 58.123.222.52 ( talk) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
on the page /info/en/?search=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 in the section: India's involvement line 5 of the paragraph I want to edit 'establishing the refugee camps alongside the border alongside the border.:23–24[64]' by removing one of the 'alongside the border'. I see no way to accomplish this although it looks like an obvious mistake to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashhenka ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
你用戶頁的牛屄沒寫成訛字「牛逼」不錯!我喜歡! 七个点 ( talk) 08:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC) |
Hello! You've listed yourself as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Chinese cinema task force. There is currently a discussion that may be of interest to you at Film censorship in China about changes to the table on the article, what information should be listed in the table, and general criteria for a film's inclusion. Please see Talk:Film censorship in China#Changes. If it is also of interest, there is also a discussion at the same article about adding scholarly literature and further historical information to the article. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Benlisquare, I have seen that you are quite active and apparently a native Chinese speaker/reader.
I have vectorized the the above mentioned map and would also like to add the Chinese inscriptions in the lower left corner, lower right corner, upper right corner and around Lake Baikal. I do not need translations of the map inscription (i.e., names of provinces, Cities etc.) – they have already been done.
Would it be possible for you to help me and proved me with the Chinese text (preferably in traditional letters but I can additionally provide a map with simplified letters).
Even if this map is not undisputed, it would be much easier to change it in vector format than in the current raster image format.
Thank you -- Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 13:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Benlisquare. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Chiang family, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Chiang family to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.
If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.
Thanks,
Edaham ( talk) 09:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The identity of the man in the photo, commonly cited as Yang Kyoungjong, is disputed. See:
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Benlisquare.
Are you active? Sorry for editing the Blood alcohol content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmaie Ajam ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive.
It seems I’m being accused of being your sockpuppet because we agreed with one another on the Wuhan coronavirus requested move a couple times. You might want to say something on your behalf. 199.66.69.88 ( talk) 02:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a test post by myself, Benlisquare. 202.142.60.92 ( talk) 04:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The Taiwan Barnstar | ||
Thanks for expressing your ideas so well. Though I disagreed with you I find it hard to not praise your arguments. Thanks for all your time at
Talk:Taiwan! I wish you all the best, and stay safe and away from COVID-19!!!
[users appreciating his work please sign beneath me!] Eumat114 formerly TLOM ( Message) 15:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Benlisquare by Eumat114 formerly TLOM ( Message) on 15:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ayashii World. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 24#Ayashii World until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello! You're quite knowledgeable about Chinese politics, so maybe you can answer a quick question for me. Which title is preferred when referring to the head of the Chinese government? President? Or General Secretary? I've seen articles use both, but I'm not certain which is to be used while keeping an article within WP:NPOV. I've looked around, but I can't seem to find a concrete answer to this. Thanks in advance for your help! Aguy777 ( talk) 09:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
copypaste
, that's why I thought the title was clever in 2016. (Some
WP:RS's have gotten this wrong, and I don't care enough to go make another
WP:ER. I have no idea how I'd even prove this anyway.)
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Benlisquare, it's me again. This message is regarding something very stale, it happened in 2015, but I feel the need to bring your attention to it because at that point you were already an editor for ten years. (That is to say, this wasn't a noob mistake.) You added a BLP violation to Hiroyuki Nishimura here. It survived in the article five years, until tonight, when I caught it and removed it as part of trying to remove {{ BLP sources}} from the article. [4] You accused Nishimura of organi[zing] a series of distributed denial of service attacks against 2channel based on a source by "Anonymous Japan" [5], complete with Guy Fawkes mask. Even if this were an WP:RSOPINION, it would have needed to be cited due to the obvious bias (Betrayal), etc.). But, this isn't an WP:RSOPINION. This source also seems to be copied and pasted directly from another source; both make the claim that the LDP was a client of 2channel. I proved this was a hoax at Talk:4chan § Neutrality issues in history section. Organizing DDoS attacks is a crime, we absolutely cannot accuse Nishimura of doing that based on this source. Hope you understand why I removed it. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
On 19 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pope John Paul II's canonisation of Chinese martyrs hurt the feelings of the Chinese people? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Nothing important to say. I was regularly browsing stuff about music casually and searched up J-Pop music. To my surprise, I found out someone had actually written a Wikipedia article concerning this commonly used chord progression in modern Japanese music. I was really excited to see it finally show up, especially since only obscure Youtubers have introduced/showed this idea. I just wanted to say, thanks for your contribution! 142.119.74.109 ( talk) 06:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Anon
Hi @ Benlisquare:
I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I saw that you are a member of Wikiproject: China and was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :)
S2102sa ( talk) 01:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I am an Australian university student currently undertaking a course in Wikipedia writing. As part of my course, I have made significant additions to the Supreme People's Procuratorate article. I noticed that you are an experienced Wikipedian and a participant of WikiProject: China, with an interest in articles about politics. I just wanted to reach out and ask if you have a quick moment to take a look at my article and potentially help with re-assessing its quality. Thank you in advance and hope you have a lovely day! Frangipani13 ( talk) 00:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello there, I'm currently working on expanding the article Gourd mouth organ as a part of my university unit. I can see that you are an expert in Wikiproject China, can you please help me improve my article by giving any feedback, advice or assessment? Thank you very much! And hope you have a lovely day. Ryssian ( talk) 11:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 ( talk) 11:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
On 4 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Needy Streamer Overload, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2022 game Needy Streamer Overload allows the player to make a female livestreamer engage in psychoactive drug abuse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Needy Streamer Overload. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Needy Streamer Overload), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 15,836 views (659.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 05:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You mentioned in your edit comment that you had found Russian sources dating back to June 2021, but those aren't included in the article. Do you still have access to them, and is there anything therein about the intents of the cages? BP OMowe ( talk) 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Takogo kak Putin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
On 5 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Takogo kak Putin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2002 Russian pop song " A Man like Putin" inadvertently became adopted as propaganda? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Takogo kak Putin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Takogo kak Putin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Eightx years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Stable Diffusion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Elspea756 ( talk) 16:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:LoH Sen no Kiseki 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 fair 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) 18:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Little Bukaria and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#Little Bukaria until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
(posting here as requested at commons:User talk:Benlisquare)
After you added a DR to this category, I nominated it for discussion. See the CfD page for details. Brianjd ( talk) 10:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Little Bukaria and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#Little Bukaria until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 22:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
On 8 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article DreamBooth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while DreamBooth can be used by anyone to fine-tune image generation AI models, the cost barrier to entry is quite high for hobbyist users? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/DreamBooth. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, DreamBooth), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elspea756 ( talk) 15:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
At [6]. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Cullen328 ( talk) 19:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Benlisquare ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
May I at least be granted the ability to defend myself at WP:ANI? There are numerous issues raised regarding me that surely I should be able to respond to. It seems unfair that a rapid turn of events completely takes place strangely while I'm asleep (UTC+11), and completely disproportional (indef) to the alleged infraction that I've committed given my 17 year history of zero blocks, zero topic bans, zero interaction bans. If the ANI community has criticisms to my conduct (and certainly plenty of my remarks made in frustration can be undoubtably viewed as over the line, I 100% admit and do not deny), I am willing to engage in dialogue and hear constructive feedback in relation to how I may improve, however from my perspective this dialogue is a two-way street. -- benlisquare T• C• E 21:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline, since the ANI discussion was already closed, as noted below. You may submit a new unblock request here, but to have a chance of success, it should discuss why you engaged in the pattern of ridiculous behavior criticized in the ANI thread, and contain a credible promise to edit usefully and appropriately from now on. If the reviewing admin is considering unblocking, they may choose to open a new ANI discussion for community input first, at their discretion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
and seems to involve derivative images that may not have a free source... Laundering a sampled image through an image generator doesn't make something self-created- all of my images are non-derivative and self-created using the SD software. While there is certainly an ongoing wider ethical debate regarding whether or not scraping the web to train neural networks is ethical, within the realms of copyright there is no issue as diffusion models do not utilise existing images to create new images, instead they generate images that resemble various concepts (e.g. "a cat", "a picasso-style piece") based on their pre-training. At least within US copyright law, piece of work can be copyrighted but things like compositions and motifs cannot.
100 images of a subject with different boob sizes... isn't advancing the encyclopedia or illustrating the concept- this I wholly accept, however the current revision does not feature this problem, and hasn't since September, and I have come to accept this based on feedback from other editors from a while back. I'm happy to discuss my confrontational conduct, but given that I did not resist the removal of the images you are talking about, I feel like I am being painted in a worse light than in actuality.
The personal attack is blockable in any case- this I do not dispute, and I would have made the same judgment were the roles reversed.
incivility... personal attacks- certainly.
mocking Islam- In hindsight I can now see how it may be interpreted as mocking, but at the time it certainly felt like a light-hearted way to lighten up the mood, by referencing a common Twitter meme and pointing out that the image is no longer even remotely of a sexually-interpretable nature (a criticism raised by multiple editors on the talk page). You definitely don't have to believe me what I say that no malice to Islam was intended, but this is truly how I felt at the time. These remarks of mine have not been appropriate, and I apologise for offense that I may have caused with these remarks.
shoehorning sexualization into articles about other topics- I would like to correct the record - in mid-September I added a set of images; following talk page discussion I accepted that the images would be removed from the article. For the longest time, I made no attempt to re-introduce them, and just kept on expanding the prose of the article over the following months. Later in November, another editor wrote on the talk page "So, how about returning at least Inpainting and Outpainting images? They were very illustrative." I expressed that, sure, I'd agree with such a change, and the inpainting image was later reapplied on 16 December, but not by me. There was disagreement whether this re-addition was sensible, which began another round of debate and discussion. I feel like the claim that I have been trying to "shoehorn" in these images somewhat unfair, given my lack of resistance to their removal earlier on.
Wikipedia is not supposed to be an open forum for pervs and religious bigots.- the first part is a personal attack, the same thing that I am currently being indefed for. I have caused wrongdoing but I would also not appreciate the label. The second part, I certainly acknowledge that I should have tread more lightly on the sensitive issue of religion; filenames such as "halal edition" and remarks regarding Putin certainly were not constructive, and I fully accept that this lapse of judgement of mine is worthy of admonishment.
how much it is a derivative work is something that will have to get hashed out in courts.Currently AI-generated content is still in a murky area since this is unironically the new Wild West frontier of technology, but eventually US Congress will catch up to things, and Wikipedia can react then. The copyright of AI-generated works should not be a content issue (that is, unless the WP community as a whole decides to pre-emptively come to a decision), so I'd like to keep the dialogue primarily focused on the content dispute, and my conduct therein, if that's alright.
Beyond that, if Ben doesn't understand why people are objecting and is getting POINTY with his edits, a block of some sort is appropriate- I fully understand the objections to the image content; I don't think I am trying to prove a point. MrOllie has raised the issue that sexualisation is a major issue in terms of WP:SYSTEMIC, and in my mind, the first thing I think of for "not sexy" is religious attire. The main WP:POINT-y action that I can certainly see is my inappropriate filename, which I acknowledge above as being done in poor taste. Given that Islamophobia is a constant issue that Wikipedia has had to deal with, it's not unreasonable for other editors to find such remarks and filenames to be problematic, and I will not dispute that I should have been more rational in how I approached religion, if I should have approached it at all. -- benlisquare T• C• E 23:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
a common Twitter meme. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact that this has gone on for months- this has gone on since 17 December. I have pointed out that, while I have initially added the image to the enwiki article in mid-September, I gave up after it was removed and did not resist after multiple editors came to a common agreement on the talk page. The article edit history demonstrates this adequately, I feel.
reflective of my hope you are unable to further disrupt additional Wiki sites- Why would I bite off my nose to spite my face? Look at things from my perspective; I've been editing Wikipedia for 17 years, why would I intentionally start causing trouble cross-wiki and tighten the rope further, given that these contributions have been a long-running hobby for me? This issue I have caused with the SD article has been a blip in the grand scheme of my contribution history, and you're telling me that I'm willing to trash it all by causing more disruption just to prove a point.
You show no recognition that your behavior was wrong and no remorse- see "this I wholly accept", "this I do not dispute", "filenames... certainly were not constructive, and I fully accept...", above. Is there a way I can express this a bit better? Open to feedback. -- benlisquare T• C• E 00:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
you're very welcome to explain... were in any way appropriate for the unrelated subject you were illustrating- at the time, and still to this day, such prompts are among the most common user-shared prompts in communities such as /r/StableDiffusion. I have no reason to pretend otherwise. A common, standard prompt template to generate a well-drawn, detailed painting of a woman were things like "attractive woman in the style of X" or "young girl depicted in the painting style of Y"; SD, however, is often unpredictable, and there are certain outputs that I do not want to see... adding keywords such as "tall" or "busty" guarantees that SD will not generate images of kids. Not to mention, I could have chosen to completely lie about the prompt used, but I didn't, because I valued full transparency and honesty regarding how the image was generated; if any third-party were reading this conversation right now, they'd probably be thinking that transparency has more downsides as their take-home lesson, and I don't think that would benefit Wikipedia at all (let's not pretend that I'm the only person on the planet capable of generating images with SD, there were SD images uploaded in the past, and there will be SD images generated in the future; we should be encouraging complete honesty and transparency for all AI-generated content).
Got it, a young girl dressed like a maid- Was this image added to a Wikipedia article at any time? I don't think so. Yes, I certainly was experimenting with prompts and seeing what the vast possibilities were, as with anyone fiddling around with new, edge-cutting technology in my demographic. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free-licence content where anyone can re-use shared content, for both non-profit and for-profit uses. If this image did not meet the content guidelines of Commons, either I would not have uploaded it, or someone on Commons would have pointed out that it didn't meet the content guidelines of Commons. Do you express this level of disdain to other NSFW contributors to Commons as well? For instance, commons:User:Pandavenger, author of File:Futanari2020.jpg? Or commons:User:Niabot, author of File:Futanari.svg? I was under the impression that I was operating under the same rules and expectations as these contributors.
No longer even remotely of a sexually-interpretable nature?!I guess we can agree to disagree, since we're now entering the realm of subjective appraisal. At least to me, no, a fully-covered woman is not biologically exciting, and her clothed form resembles the common irl female form, at least where I'm from. You might not agree with my rationalisation, but this is unironically how I internalised this image. I assumed that much of the community would be favourably on-board with the changes, but here we are, and now I know. -- benlisquare T• C• E 14:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Any admin reviewing any unblock requests is going to base their decision on *your* words alone- I'm not expecting that I'll be granted the ability to make any future unblock requests. Pbritti has requested a global ban, which means that I soon will lose the ability to edit this talk page. -- benlisquare T• C• E 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think any bystanders could have viewed the situation any other way- One of the allegations brought forward was that I had been editwarring over the span of multiple months, which doesn't match the edit history. I first added the problematic images on 27 September 2022. Between 28 September and 8 October, multiple editors on the talk page raise the issue that the example images are particularly sexualised in nature; the images were removed on 13 October 2022 and I did not resist this change. On 11 November 2022, Smeagol 17 writes on the talk page asking if the inpainting images can be re-added; I respond on the talk page on 8 December (but do not add the images myself in articlespace), then on 16 December Smeagol 17 re-applies the images to the article. A back-and-forth between Elspea756 and Smeagol 17 briefly takes place on 18 December. On 22 December, I added the problematic hijab images, which then ensued in an edit war that I did participate in: one, two, three, four. Many of the points raised by bystanders in the ANI thread bring up edit warring as part of my long-term months-long abuse on this article, which contributed to the end result. I fully accept the civility accusations, and I understand that I've been inappropriately making visual content with touchy subjects too, just to be clear.
it's between you and the admins now- I am aware. I'd just like to clear the record as much as possible. -- benlisquare T• C• E 21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
generated with txt2img using the following prompts: Prompt: attractive young girl, large breasts...
. Goodbye.
Levivich (
talk) 21:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Kadı: - may I at least defend myself? You have locked my ability to edit my Commons talk page, so I cannot appeal the block. I believe that, owing to the fact that I have made zero edits to any cross-wiki project since my enwiki indef, I am acting in good faith and have not engaged in any malicious or damaging behaviour. Surely this demonstrates that the risk of cross-wiki damage brought up by Pbritti is extremely low? My interpretation is that COM:NOTWP applies here unless I have demonstrably caused cross-wiki harm in spite of my enwiki indef. Blocks are meant to prevent further disruptive editing, and are not meant to be a punitive measure; I understand that my past actions on enwiki have brought me into disrepute, but I don't understand how permanently preventing me from contributing to English Wiktionary and Chinese Wikipedia, my next most-commonly edited projects (due to my interest in linguistics) relates to this. -- benlisquare T• C• E 20:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Are Wikimedia projects full of pedophiles?Yes, especially Commons, because of creepy internet dudes who post and defend shit like "attractive young girl, large breasts". ( Personal attack removed) Hey, Ben, and anyone else who thinks your pictures are normal: women are people, not just something to think about when you're jerking off. Stop using AI to make sexualized images of women and posting them on the internet. You're polluting our culture with this crap and reinforcing negative and harmful stereotypes about women. ( Personal attack removed) Levivich ( talk) 15:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
the contents of Levivich's comment are correctWhich part? The part about Wikimedia users having psychiatric disorders? The part about them being incels? Any valid point that Levivich might have had is overshadowed by the ridiculous way their comment is worded overall.
one of the best defenses you can muster is what the definition of "girl" isThe definition of ‘girl’ is literally the entire point of this section (starting with starship.paint’s first comment). Brianjd ( talk) 08:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
he/him · page mover, 31310 edits since: 2018-11-12, last edit on 2022-12-24, so you certainly should know better, as you are not new nor inexperienced. Again, "rules for me, but not for thee" is not the best optics for Wikipedia, which has very clear policy and guideline pages, but is often accused of having selective community enforcement.
You're polluting our culture with this crap- I'm not American, and Wikipedia is a global website. You're bound to meet people who are different, and what you should be doing is constructively educating them what your personal boundaries are, and letting them know that you would like these boundaries respected. Commons is used by people from all over the world, so it's quite likely that you'll meet someone whose values do not align. I certainly will not defend Chinese culture, as it has many many flaws, but I will point out that the very things you criticise are highly normalised - to illustrate, the front page of bilibili.tv (the domestic Chinese equivalent of Youtube) affirms this. Is this right? Hell no, and certainly progress can be made. But it's an example of how, as civilisations meet, there is no such thing as "common sense" values. I respect the judgement of the English Wikipedia community and understand that I have undeniably crossed many unacceptable boundaries, and upon lengthy reflection I feel remorse for the objectionable content I have uploaded; my hope is that you too would be able to turn a new leaf and move on from my past misdeeds, especially in the spirit of Christmas. -- benlisquare T• C• E 22:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The first ever high-resolution AI-generated smut uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. No, I don't feel ashamed creating this, it's the 21st Century and the wheels of technology must perpetually turn.
— User:Benlisquare, description for File:Stable Diffusion AI-generated painting of nude woman.png (NSFW)
...cute (((perfect face))) (Evocative pose) (Seductive Smirk) ... slender ((girly hips)) (((thick_thighs)) ... ((exposed midriff)), young maiden ((busty)) ((sheer tight sundress))...sex appeal.The parens () are used for emphasis, so we can see what he wanted the AI to emphasize when generating this image.
No, I don't feel ashamed creating this, it's the 21st Century and the wheels of technology must perpetually turn.- This file description was written on 1 October 2022; furthermore, even if I wasn't the one to upload the "very first high-resolution smut" to Commons, somebody else would have. It was an inevitable outcome, whether you like this sort of content or not. Lizard-brained males are overrepresented in tech and software, you'd be kidding yourself otherwise.
What the hell kind of prompt is that? (And who in their right mind thinks an 18-year-old is fully grown?)- If you actually read the file description properly, it's to emulate the phrasing that an old boomer would write in a Facebook post, to make full effective use of LAION's caption-image pairs. A long while ago now, the SD community has proven through trial-and-error that you get highly effective photorealistic results if you think like a social media user, and type as they would. And finally, when I turned 18, the state deemed me fit for voting, fit to get drafted and die in a war for
remain clean as a whistleor you can reject censorship. You can’t even come close to doing both.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Cfact and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:Cfact until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:CFact and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Template:CFact until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve ( talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Benlisquare ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I hereby would like to request that I make a return to writing and editing articles. My time away from Wikipedia certainly has been refreshing, to say the least; but even so, there are articles that I still want to write. I believe that, upon taking up WP:OFFER and granted a return to Wikipedia, I will be able to contribute in a manner that is more civil and collaborative, and in accordance with the constructive feedback provided by others. Given that indef blocks are intended to prevent disruption and are not punitive, I would like to provide reassurances that my return would not lead to further disruption; after all, further misdeeds on my part would be ample WP:ROPE to justify a more concrete block. -- benlisquare T• C• E 19:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)>
Accept reason:
Benlisquare's request is accepted. Benlisquare has agreed to:
I look forward to reading your successful edits on Wikipedia. Z1720 ( talk) 16:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
No checkuser evidence of recent block evasion. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I would want more definitive statements on what "incivil rhetoric" you will avoid- Including, but not limited to, name-calling, passive-aggressiveness, slurs, hostile sarcasm, and remarks that specifically single out someone by race, religion, orientation or gender.
and recommend that you commit to WP:BRD and commit to WP:1RR- Sure, I can commit to a year of 1RR, and then seek further review before returning to 3RR, would that be acceptable?
The statements also do not address how you should have discussed the addition of the controversial images- Frankly, I should have dropped the issue back in September 2022 when Colin M first raised these concerns; pressing onwards into December 2022 in spite of multiple editors raising objections was an inappropriate move on my part, and there's no explanation for it that'll make it justifiable. At the time, there were few contributors who knew what they were doing when running SD and its derivative models, so I had the foolish thought to ignore community concerns and pretended that WP:CONSENSUS-building wasn't needed - call it an SME's stubbornness, I guess? At any rate, this entire saga has been a learning experience for me, and has taught me that excessive pride will lead me to make questionable decisions that'll bite me back sometime, and indeed it has; taking on a more humble approach to editing, regardless if it's a topic that I'm very familiar with or relatively unfamiliar with, would be the baseline for changing my approach to these things. Encountering disagreements is only natural, and I should have seeked to find common ground or engage a wider collection of editors for input, but instead I chose to resort to personal attacks (among other things) instead, actions which I can confidently attribute to hubris and the silly assumption that there'd be no consequences laid against someone who's authored 48% of the article prose as of the 31 July 2023 revision. In short, curbing my ego would be the primary avenue of changing my behaviour on Wikipedia -- or at least, that's how I see it. Of course, I could be interpreting this all completely wrong, so I'm keen to hear out any alternative theories as to why I behaved this way. -- benlisquare T• C• E 07:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Cullen328: As blocking admin, per the above, do you have any objections to this user being unblocked? Z1720 ( talk) 14:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Benlisquare, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Actualcpscm, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Otomate, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otomate.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Actualcpscm}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you have added a sample File:IVΔ7-V7-iii7-vi chord progression in C.ogg - Wikipedia
I found it on this page - List of chord progressions - Wikipedia
The audio sample is VERY loud compared to the other samples on the page. 108.160.119.224 ( talk) 21:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1905 (film) 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.