User talk:InfiniteNexus

Home

Talk

Contributions

Sandbox

Tips

Citations

Frameworks

Cases

Lists

Logs

XfDs

Scripts

XTools

Speedy deletion declined: Android on Desktop

Hello InfiniteNexus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Android on Desktop, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: doesn't seem that implausable. needs to go to xfd. Thank you. GedUK  10:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ged UK: Apologies for the late reply. The wording at WP:R3 is recently created, implausible typos, emphasis added. It does not grant an exception to "implausible typos that could be considered a reasonable alternative name" (and, even if it did, I would be happy to explain why this is not a reasonable alternative name). Surely, you agree that "Android on Desktop" is not a plausible typo for "Aluminium OS"? If you check the page history, this redirect literally only existed for 1 minute. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I categorized the redirect. ~2026-13161-28 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a "wrong name", it's a non-existent name. No one has ever called this product "Android for desktop". We're still waiting on Ged to respond. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated the redirect and its talk page through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. ~2026-13161-28 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

And why'd you do that... InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

"CNN Underscored" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect CNN Underscored has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 28 § CNN Underscored until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello InfiniteNexus:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Opinion wanted

@InfiniteNexus I pinged you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego#Reviving WikiProject Lego asking for an opinion due to your statements at this AFD. I'd like to hear if you have any comments to make there. NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295: Hi there! Thanks for the message, and sorry for not responding to the ping. Unfortunately, I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately, which has sadly been the case for a while now due to real-life priorities. Regardless, I wouldn't consider myself a LEGO expert nor enthusiast anyway (don't get me wrong, I like LEGOs, just not a diehard), nor have I spent much time in that area here on Wikipedia. As such, I am probably not qualified to weigh in on this proposal. With that being said, I wish you all the best on your proposal and hope it attracts enough support to revive the WikiProject — there's sadly many WikiProjects that have been effectively "dead" for years, resulting in perennially neglected areas on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Googlebook

A new page Googlebook on the French Wikipedia has been linked to your page Googlebook via Wikidata (Q139780084).

You will not be notified in the future about new articles linked to any of the articles you have created, if you wish to opt-in to receiving these notifications, please follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Generative AI editnotice overhauled quite significantly

Hi, I've overhauled the template you created, Template:Generative AI editnotice, quite significantly. You can see what it looks like now here. It supports both talknotice and editnotice now. Hopefully you like it :) Maayaaaaa (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Maayaaaaa: I appreciate the initiative, but may I ask why you did that? Did you make this change with community input, or did you do so unilaterally? I do not see any evidence of discussion on the talk page, so it would seem to be the case of the latter. The primary objective of this editnotice is to be as prominent and noticeable as possible in order to combat banner blindness and general incompetence; I am not sure your redesign is an improvement in that regard. Although the editnotice is not perfect, as some talk pages continue to frequently receive prompts intended for an LLM, it has largely served its purpose well. If you have suggestions on how to improve the template further, you are welcome to raise them on the talk page. Until then, I am restoring the prior version that had WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS of the community. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. However, normally if you have objections to an edit, the onus would be on you to explain the reasoning for your revert, as opposed to me needing to get consensus first. See WP:DRNC. The reason I bring this up is because your comment gives me very little idea as to what could have been improved or changed. However, I've mostly moved onto other things, but maybe I will revisit that template at some point. Maayaaaaa (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Maayaaaaa, I did explain why your edit was not an improvement and contrary to the purpose of the editnotice — see the portion of my comment above from "The primary objective..." until "served its purpose well", which summarizes what your proposed "minimalist" redesign misses. As for the question of consensus, the link you cited is an essay (and therefore not authoritative) and has no basis in PAGs, as far as I know; it is generally frowned upon to make major changes to highly visible pages unilaterally without first consulting the community (due to its potentially disruptive nature, the high likelihood of other editors objecting to the edit per WP:EDITCON, and its tendency to result in edit wars), so while being WP:BOLD is usually encouraged and not "against the rules", it is unwise to do so in such instances. I will reiterate that you are more than welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, and I would be happy to hear them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fact that WP:DRNC is not authoritative because it's not a policy. I'm not trying to WikiLawyer on you. Rather, I'm just saying that, if you think that the version I created would be less visible to users because it doesn't use the huge font size, stop hand, and the highlighted bit, it's a lot more helpful to just make those objections directly (ideally on the template's talk page). The main benefit of the version I created, I think, is that it has a big blue button right in the center to easily direct users to the AI model they were intending to go to, and so minimizes banner blindness problem without using too much red text. However, you haven't said anything about the meat and potatoes of this (besides saying "I am not sure your redesign is an improvement in that regard") about this, so I'm mostly just speculating here. Maayaaaaa (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, while the template does have a few hundred transclusions, it's probably not quite at the point of being a "highly visible template". Usually, those templates are template protected or EC protected. Also, I haven't reverted your edit, and don't plan to at the moment, so we're nowhere near the point of an edit war, and there's nothing to worry about there. Maayaaaaa (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

What I meant by "highly visible" is that the editnotice is used on hundreds of high-traffic articles (due to the ongoing AI boom — or bubble) to fend off disruptive talk-page requests on a daily basis — imagine if we changed the design of a stop sign on "a handful" of ... high-traffic streets. Anyway, the template currently already provides a hyperlink to the chatbot that the user is looking for; changing this from a blue link to a blue button would seem purely cosmetic/aesthetic, but I'm not necessarily opposed to that. What I do object to is the characteristics you have identified above, which have been continually added, refined, and enhanced by the community over the years (the last edit before yours was an administrator making the bold font even bolder, believing the previous text to not already be conspicuous enough!), whereas the "minimalist" redesign you proposed goes in the opposite direction in terms of "attention-grabbingness" (for lack of a better word), not to mention throwing away the collaborative work of the editors who assembled the template (in other words, you "nuked" the page, but didn't provide a strong reason for such a drastic action). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like the root of this issue is that you (and perhaps others) worked hard on the current version, and so you are unhappy that I WP:NUKE'd the template. Which is not really the case, because I did use significant portions of the old template. But since WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't normally accepted on Wikipedia as a valid justification in disputes, you instead went just went for the next closest policy you could find, and claimed no consensus instead. Which is fine. I just think, if that was the issue, you could have just told me that from the beginning, and it would save everyone a lot of time. Either way, I'm not going to undo your changes, so you have nothing to worry about for now. I might revisit the template later though if I have time. Maayaaaaa (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

That was not the main issue I cited; please do not misconstrue my comments or assume bad faith. The main issues, as communicated to you above, were: (1) the proposed redesign is too subdued and does not fulfill the attention-grabbing goal of this editnotice; (2) the proposed redesign is contrary to the principles of the previous design, which had the consensus of the community and has historically worked well; and (3) this editnotice is actively used on many high-traffic pages, so any major changes should be discussed first in order to avoid disruption. At no point did I say, or even insinuate, "I don't like it"; my "nuke" comment was in relation to point (2), i.e. you sought to throw away the established consensus, but didn't provide a demonstrated reason to do so (this, ironically, is often interpreted as an ILIKEIT edit, though you'll notice I made no such accusation in the spirit of AGF). See also MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)