User talk:Sirfurboy

:Thanks. I saw the terrible Forbes article too. You'd think, if they really wanted to demonstrate his notability, that they'd spend time writing a biographical article about him, rather than complaining that he is notable because he writes a lot. Of course, whether we'd find any such reliable article would be an open question since, for some reason, all our searches turn up blogs and adverts for stuff we don't want when we try to search about SEO. Who'd have thought. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 18:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks. I saw the terrible Forbes article too. You'd think, if they really wanted to demonstrate his notability, that they'd spend time writing a biographical article about him, rather than complaining that he is notable because he writes a lot. Of course, whether we'd find any such reliable article would be an open question since, for some reason, all our searches turn up blogs and adverts for stuff we don't want when we try to search about SEO. Who'd have thought. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 18:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

::With such a long career, I wouldn't have been surprised if GNG-sources had been found, but despite all the fans showing up, they didn't. Oh well. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

::With such a long career, I wouldn't have been surprised if GNG-sources had been found, but despite all the fans showing up, they didn't. Oh well. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

== This comment ==

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thryduulf#c-Sirfurboy-20260422120400-Thryduulf-20260422090600 this comment]

Since you don't have the context, let me clarify: the ANI I started against Andy was not in any way a flawed idea. Many people (including Andy himself) acknowledged it would have succeeded if I did not use LLMs as a very limited scouting tool because frankly, Andy was out of line and there was abundant evidence to support this. The only reason it failed is because, being a good faith editor, I was honest about my limited LLM usage to flag data knowing full well if I had just lied the ANI was more or less guaranteed to succeed, and this kicked the boomerang/both-sides-made-mistakes machine into full throttle. No amount of limited LLM usage to flag data is accepted in Wikipedia (notably, guidelines against LLM usage are mostly about ''generative'' content specifically, which is why I assumed it was okay as a scouting tool), but I think there's an argument to be made that limited human-vetted LLM usage can be useful as a scouting tool if done carefully. That's apparently not okay here, which is fine, but anti-AI absolutism, even when it comes to using it as a non-generative tool solely for sorting through data, I think is a little bit reactionary/[[WP:NOSE]], but whatever. So that's all to say that yes, I get ANIs should be used sparingly, but this was not a flawed ANI idea (per the above) so I reject the criticism that ''starting this ANI'' was indicative of a larger pattern of starting ANIs when it's not appropriate.

Quite frankly though it seems like you left that comment to harp on a dead horse because you sense the opportunity to establish a broader narrative of me ''repeatedly failing to learn'' or something along these lines despite the above context. And I'd be lying if I didn't mention a sense this was at minimum in some small way, subconsciously or otherwise, connected to how you have taken issue with content I created in every mutual discussion we have been involved with in recent months, whether by removing half the content from [[Template:Gaza genocide sidebar]], nominating [[Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar]] for deletion, and now opposing [[Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States#Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism"]] (not assuming bad faith, but I'm mentioning this to emphasize the clear existence of an ideological divide between us that explains this pattern, not that Wiki is a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] or that one of us or the other is in bad faith/politically motivated/etc, but only to say there are clearly ideological tendencies among editors and I think in the interest of being candid we should be able to acknowledge this type of bias exists and affects everyone, including myself). This is all fine, but when you come by and make a condescending remark ({{tq|what they appear to have learnt from last month's foray is how to dig up dirt with an LLM}}) after A) I've already taken responsibility for exactly this and B) not being involved in this conversation at all, it's hard for me to take the friendly advice at the end at face value rather than to see this as a "gotcha" over someone you disagree with. When you came by and opposed my split at [[Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States#Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism"]], you scolded me for bludgeoning even though I already said I was backing away from typing specifically to avoid bludgeoning. That's part of the reason I reacted as strongly as I did. I pinged you to that discussion knowing full well you would disagree in the interest of being a good faith editor, so for you to re-scold me over something I already acknowledged and pledged to avoid going forward feels a bit opportunistic.

I'm here since we're clearly going to be running into each other going forward and I want to have a cordial relationship, but I also want to call something out when I see it. Correct me if I'm out of line, I'm here to talk and not to fight, but I did think that comment was a bit bad taste and wanted to explain why. [[User:Alexandraaaacs1989|Alexandraaaacs1989]] ([[User talk:Alexandraaaacs1989|talk]]) 22:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)