User talk:Tbhotch
Add topic
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Main | Talk | About me |
Created articles |
Selected articles |
Selected DYK |
Selected quotes |
Barnstars | Favorite images |
Sandbox | Mexico Metro |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_brightened.jpg)
Category:Video games created using generative AI has been nominated for deletion
[edit]
Category:Video games created using generative AI has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:28, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit] |
Hey, Tbhotch. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) 00:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC) |
 |
Zahrazamedahmedi (🗨️My Talk Page🗨️) (🫗My Mistakes🫗) 00:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit] |
Hey, Tbhotch. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 03:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC) |
 |
☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 03:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of Template:Emilia Pérez for discussion
[edit]Template:Emilia Pérez has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the nomination on the Templates for discussion page. Οἶδα (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit] | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Tbhotch! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC) |  |
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit] |
Happy First Edit Day, Tbhotch, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PixelsRCool (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2026 (UTC) |
Message / tag added to a contribution made about "Karma Chameleon"
[edit]Hi
Thanks for cleaning up my contribution (about the AI version of the song) to the Karma Chameleon article. I read about the AI version and noticed that there wasn't a mention of it in the article.
Frankly one is a novice here, so one just dips in occasionally (as you possibly can see, I don't even know how to do proper line spacing...). However, I did notice that a tag (?) had been added that said, "This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay", which seems odd as none of the things I added to the article are not my "personal refections" and they certainly weren't "argumentative"... Amongst the small contributions I've made here, there are no edits I've made that include things like this.
I just added simple facts about what Boy George has done, and facts about the difference between a master recording and song publishing. I'm neither a "fan" of Boy George or somebody that dislikes him: I merely noticed the omission regarding that AI song, so added it.
Perhaps that "tag" that was added is already worded like that by default (so it's not you making a "judgement"), but it did feel slightly pejorative.
Were there parts of it that you feel are not true, for example? I know the music business and can assure you that everything was true anyway, so with respect, your possible ignorance of these matters is something for you to remedy.
The part I added concluded by saying, "The AI re-recording is an attempt to bypass Universal Music Group for situations like film rights for the song, for example", and yes, I could have said "partly an attempt", but the last two words ("for example") arguably do the same thing. And I said "attempt" as making an AI version isn't necessarily a "slam dunk", as film producers might still request the original version, also given the fact that Universal Music Group have a pre-existing close relationship with film studios.
Unless it was somebody else that added that tag?
Thanks! ~2026-56163-59 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry... forgot to sign in. Still not even sure it was you that added that message to my contribution (again, not a "pro" user), so apologies if it wasn't you. Charliepenandink (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Charliepenandink: You don't need to be a fan or detest the subject of an article to introduce personal reflections into articles. For example, I simply added a pre-written tag to the article indicating that the section includes personal reflections. Here, in your comment, for example, you comment "Were there parts of it that you feel are not true". Excuse me but at which point before this message I said something was not true? I pointed out a personal reflection, not falsehoods.
- It is important that you don't make inappropriate assumptions because that leads to make accusations like in the evident personal attack which follows: "your possible ignorance of these matters is something for you to remedy". Whether I work in the music business or not is none of your business. I don't need to be a music expert to write articles about musical topics, but you are more than welcome to follow the instructions provided in the template including reading the provided link: WP:ORIGINALITY.
- Below is a quick assessment explaining why your addition qualifies as an essay. At first I didn't read the sources, I simply noticed text inexplicably explaining the meaning of master recordings (as if master recordings wasn't the article that needs to explain this), but I had to review them to make a better assessment.
In 2026 Boy George released an AI-assisted remake version of song, called "Karma Chameleon (Artist Included)", looking to capture direct streaming and sync revenues, as Virgin Records (owned by Universal Music Group) owns the master recording. Historically record labels often funded the recording studio session, marketing and distribution, and demanded ownership of the master recording.[24]
Whilst generally song publishing rights are owned by the songwriters, the master recordings of songs by older heritage acts are still often owned by the major labels they signed to (contemporary independent artists sometimes fund their own music, which can allow them to keep 100% of both their masters and their publishing). This master recording ownership issue has led artists like Taylor Swift to re-record their back catalogue, although in this instance Boy George utilised AI to assist with the process. Although Boy George and the songwriters own the publishing, he and Culture Club monetised those rights over the years to raise capital. The AI re-recording is an attempt to bypass Universal Music Group for situations like film rights for the song, for example.[25]
-
- In red: You mentioned you know the music business. Per WP:NOTESSAY: "Personal essays that state your feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)." Is the text in red mentioned by the sources, or is your reflection explaining how the music business work?
- In brown: None of the sources provided mention Taylor Swift. You are making your own reflection and comparing both situations, which is called original research
- Analyzing, for example, "The AI re-recording is an attempt to bypass Universal Music Group for situations like film rights for the song, for example.[25]", the adjacent source doesn't mention UMG, at most a subsidiary of Virgin, but not UMG itself. If the sources are talking about Virgin, then write Virgin.
- These are examples on why the tag was added, not because I initially thought it includes falsehoods (although now I know it includes original research). It was the opportunity for you to reflect on what you wrote instead of taking it personal and making attacks to the person that criticized your addition. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, understood.
- Still, you mentioned "Personal essays that state your feelings about a topic" -
- I just noticed that I mistakenly added a word too many when I said, "none of the things I added to the article are not my "personal refections"", but I think my meaning was clear - so again, for the second time, there are no personal reflections in what I wrote: merely facts.
- Of course perhaps Wikipedia considers every single fact as a "personal reflection" if it has no citation, but strictly speaking if I say that traditional phone boxes in the UK were red, would that be a "personal reflection"? No, it would be a fact. If Wikipedia considers that point a "personal reflection", then Wikipedia is sometimes ridiculous.
- Therefore when you said, "Is the text in red mentioned by the sources, or is your reflection explaining how the music business work?", respectfully it seemed a tad risible: if I physically demonstrated how to operate a corkscrew in front of you, would you say, "is this your reflection explaining how a corkscrew works? No, because it's not my "personal refection", it's just a fact. That's how the corkscrew works.
- If everything on Wikipedia needs a citation, the pages would be bristling with them in almost every sentence. Because they aren't, this presumably leads to editors making sometimes frivolous clams that they aren't there. I imagine I'm right, but I also understand that I clearly gave too much information, so have omitted that information (God forbid that Wikipedia users might learn something they didn't know...)
- Still, you are (strictly?) using Wikipedia's definition, so fair enough, thanks.
- You said, "It is important that you don't make inappropriate assumptions because that leads to make accusations like in the evident personal attack which follows: "your possible ignorance of these matters is something for you to remedy"" What you omitted is the fact that I prefaced that with "with respect", and if you read it closely again, I said "your possible ignorance". "Possible". As in, one explanation might be that you are ignorant of the subject matter. But that is only one explanation. There could be others. That's why the word "possible" was used. It wasn't an "evident personal attack". So to quote you, ironically, "it is important that you don't make inappropriate assumptions". It's possible you do great work here.
- You go on to say that "None of the sources provided mention Taylor Swift. You are making your own reflection and comparing both situations, which is called original research".
- Look at the title of this article:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute
- Do you see the key word? Exactly the same issue: master recordings. One could almost say that somebody was being wilfully obtuse to say that these two events are not connected. So to draw comparison between Boy George's master recordings matter and Taylor Swift's, er, master recordings matter... is just normal human acuity. It wouldn't be "original research" in any other sphere in the known universe; one could go further and suspect that this "original research" aspect is probably something that only Pooterish Wikipedia editors squabble about. Not that one is accusing you of this: one is merely pointing out that to enforce every single time that something could be considered "original research" here... would be like trying to hold back the tide. I could open almost any Wikipedia article right now, and no doubt find something that didn't have a citation, or something that could be considered "original research", but of course it would pathological pedantry to do so.
- Boy George's history of legal battles over unpaid or undercounted royalties was with Virgin Records, but UMG acquired Virgin's parent company (EMI) in 2012, meaning UMG currently controls those original master recordings. So that's why UMG was mentioned. I could have chosen other citations (that would've mentioned UMG), but it just so happens that the one I chose mentions Virgin.
- So when you said, "UMG, at most a subsidiary of Virgin" in fact it's the exact opposite: Virgin Records and Virgin Music Group are subsidiaries of Universal Music Group.
- You said, "Whether I work in the music business or not is none of your business", linking to yet another recondite Wikipedia "rule" that has hitherto escaped me: let me assure you that, with respect, I have absolutely no interest in your life whatsoever: to reach the conclusion that I do is truly inexplicable, so perhaps I've also misinterpreted this, and it is yet another opaque and recherché practice amongst Wikipedia editors I know nothing about.
- When you said, "I pointed out a personal reflection, not falsehoods", I see what you mean, but again I suppose I'm confusing Wikipedia with the real world, where if somebody tells you something, you believe it...
- I know you were (rigorously?) following the letter if the law as it were, so fair enough: I have removed the sections mentioned (which I nonetheless feel is a detriment to the knowledge of future readers of it).
- It leads me to ponder this: I never used to want to "join in" here (I'm often with Groucho on membership), as it sometimes seemed an inscrutable walled garden of hair-splitters that didn't like "strangers", and I now remember again that perhaps due to the occasional dogmatic adherence to (and interpretation of) the rules here, perhaps it isn't for me.
- Nonetheless I don't include you with the quibblers (that I just implied are domiciled here): thank you for pointing out the issues with my contribution, and thank you for work that you and others do to sustain this incredibly valuable website. Charliepenandink (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
- Addendum:
- Article changed. Happy for you to delete this entire thread if required, and thanks again : ) Charliepenandink (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
ANI discussion about your conduct
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tbhotch escalating a simple reminder to use edit summaries. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
"Taekwondo" is the name used by the WT, while "Taekwon-Do" refers to the martial art of the ITF (founded by Choi); therefore, this distinction is correct. Generalizing the two does not improve matters; rather, it conflates one style with the other. Taekwondo is originated from the *kwans* (schools), where styles such as Tae Soo Do, Kong Soo Do, and various forms of Karate were blended together and was politically desired by South Korean President Park. Taekwon-Do, was developed independently within the ITF. You might want to take a look at the *Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do*.
https://de.scribd.com/doc/32625593/Encyclopedia-of-Tae-Kwon-Do-Vol-1
https://www.utupub.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/daa2f3c7-0645-471e-b91d-1504d840440b/content
Normally, the two styles should be kept separate. I would do that, if it is allowed.
Please, no more generalizing. Thanks Bosse Nor (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas
[edit]
On 31 October 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – robertsky (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!
[edit]
Ren ☺ (Talk) is wishing you a Happy Halloween! Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:BlueStaticHorse/Happy Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ren ☺ (Talk) 22:21, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
DYK for Day of the Dead Parade
[edit]
On 1 November 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Day of the Dead Parade, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mexico City's annual Day of the Dead Parade was inspired by a fictional Day of the Dead parade in the 2015 film Spectre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Day of the Dead Parade. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Day of the Dead Parade), 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 nominate it.
DYK for Cueyamil railway station
[edit]On 3 November 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cueyamil railway station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that six people died in floods next to the Cueyamil railway station, on an avenue where residents had previously reported problems with the drainage system? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cueyamil railway station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Cueyamil railway station), 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 nominate it.
Question to proceed about Talk:Drake Bell
[edit]Hey,
It seems my attempt for a discussion on Talk page to the Drake Bell article was closed. I spend a lot of time to draft the proposed text (and these are my words). I am relatively new and genuinely thought there is no issue to ask a friend, who speaks English as his first language, to help me write my reasons why I think it needs a change and thought it required a formal style.
I am actually kinda embarrassed and unsure how to proceed, or if I should even proceed on this article ever again. I saw a BLP issue and wanted to address it.
To learn for the future, is there a way to handle it properly to save face?
I am grateful in advance for advice as I am still learning.
Serienjunkie2014 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
