Angilas

Welcome!

Hi Angilas! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact and we were WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. I notice your first 7 edits are devoted to watering down the mainstream view of WP:FRINGE topics like Phoenix lights, Bigfoot, Bob Lazar, etc. and you seem super familiar with Wikpedia policies and editing, so I doubt you are an actual newcomer to the encyclopedia. You may want to voluntarily disclose your previous accounts if you have any to avoid WP:BADCLEANSTART. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not have any previous accounts, only one account: Angilas.

The reasons I am familiar with Wikipedia policies are that I have traditionally edited posts while not logged in and because I often now research policies and best practices when evaluating content.

This account was first created in 2023 to edit a Spanish-language page that required login: es:Gojira,_Ebira,_Mothra_Nankai_no_Daikettō

The reason I'm logged in right now is because there are a couple articles to which I want to contribute that require an autoconfirmed account.

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that I'm watering down the mainstream view of fringe topics. It has been my intent to ensure consistency with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and I expect my recent edits to be evaluated on their merit and within the purview of Wikipedia's policies. Angilas (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

"I respectfully disagree with the assertion that I'm watering down the mainstream view of fringe topics." ← I would agree with LuckyLouie above. Changing "Both sightings were" to "UFO skeptic Robert Sheaffer has identified the phenomena as activities related to" feels like "watering down" the article. I noticed similar hedging added to another article that made it less clear and informative. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

LLM use

Please disclose whether you have used any AI tools, such as ChatGPT or Grammarly, in the course of your editing. Please note that such use is generally not allowed. Fermiboson (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Fermiboson, you asked about LLM use in editing. I did use a tool to help tighten the wording for the edit summary of a now-reverted change to the Roswell Incident article, but the edits I made to the content of the article itself constituted my own writing and were based on reliable sources. Likewise, I feel my flagged "edit summary" can fall under the umbrella of the WP:NOLLM's first exception (i.e. "suggesting basic copyedits"). Angilas (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you been using any AI tools to help you compose comments on talk pages? Cadddr (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

My Talk page comments represent my own writing.

If there is a specific post you'd like addressed, please link to it. Angilas (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that your comments represent your own writing, but have you used AI to help rephrase your thoughts? Some of your comments look like AI-style writing to me, but I could definitely be mistaken. Cadddr (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think I know what's going on. In the past I've traditionally been logged out when contributing. And my contributions were mostly to math and STEM articles in those days.

It's been a while since I'd edited, but then I recently got onto a WP:FRINGE kick. But this part of Wikipedia does, among often actually requiring being logged in and having an autoconfirmed account, require a bit more collaboration to get even the slightest change pushed through, so I tried going ultra dry, ultra dulcet, and ultra diplomatic in my Talk page contributions. My guess is that my earlier Talk page contributions from the past week are therefore throwing up alarm bells.

But as you can see, recently... especially on the Phoenix Lights talk page, I have since mostly abandoned pretense and am trying to speak closer to how I do in real life. Angilas (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, and I agree that your recent comments sound more natural. Thank you for answering my questions! Cadddr (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous account?

As I write this you have made fewer than twenty edits, yet you display a knowledge of nuanced Wikipedia policies and guidelines that is atypical of most all new-comers. That, plus the fact that several long-term editors in good standing have noted that your edits include multiple attempts to water-down fringe topics, leads me to ask: have you ever edited the English Wikipedia using another account/username? If yes, please read WP:CLEANSTART before continuing to edit. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I've already responded to LuckyLouie regarding this ^further up the page.

To recap my response to him:

"I do not have any previous accounts, only one account: Angilas.

The reasons I am familiar with Wikipedia policies are that I have traditionally edited posts while not logged in and because I often now research policies and best practices when evaluating content.

This account was first created in 2023 to edit a Spanish-language page that required login: es:Gojira,_Ebira,_Mothra_Nankai_no_Daikettō

The reason I'm logged in right now is because there are a couple articles to which I want to contribute that require an autoconfirmed account.

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that I'm watering down the mainstream view of fringe topics. It has been my intent to ensure consistency with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and I expect my recent edits to be evaluated on their merit and within the purview of Wikipedia's policies."

And to be frank, and slightly less erring on the side of diplomacy because I see how pervasive the problem is now, I really am more than a little gobsmacked that adding attribution to a conclusion is apparently tantamount to watering down an article. LuckyLouie, Rᴊᴊᴵᴵᴵ, and yourself have all made this curious claim. Attribution is literally the point of Wikipedia. We are not Tumblr. Angilas (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I left a request at WP:NPOVN for others to comment on the Phoenix Lights. Regarding Roswell, Britannica uses a similar construction to Wikipedia: "Roswell incident, events surrounding the crash and recovery of a U.S. Army Air Forces high-altitude balloon in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico, ... the balloon was part of the top-secret Project Mogul, which sought to detect Soviet nuclear bomb tests." Columbia and Oxford seem uninterested in the debris' origins, and instead focus on the social aspects. I think an earlier version of the Roswell article (discussed on the talk page and WP:FTN) did use more attribution but consensus was against this. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Rᴊᴊᴵᴵᴵ,

I appreciate you bringing light to our discussion in the Phoenix Lights Talk Page over on the WP:NPOV Noticeboard, especially since I got upbraided by JoJo up there for approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory with LuckyLouie yesterday evening.

And don't get me wrong, even though I feel my case is strong on its merits, I do understand there is a very, very (actually let's not mince words here, exceedingly) high likelihood my efforts to strengthen attribution will be overturned. I'm all too aware Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that works on consensus, and as I like to say, consensus does not determine who is right, but only which direction is generally taken.

I don't know if it helps, but the complete list of Talk Pages where I've made similar proposals consists of:

• Bigfoot (Talk Page)
• Phoenix Lights (Talk Page)
• Roswell incident (Talk Page)

Of the three, I feel I have the strongest case for moving the Bigfoot lead's verdict to attribution due to Dr. Goodall and Dr. Naish's less-than-unequivocal stance as listed in the article, as well as the article's subsequent list of primatologists, anthropologists, and biologists who have at least not categorically dismissed the remotest possibility. But again, very well aware of the high probability that consensus could swing against strengthening attribution, which would be sad... but maybe I'll just have some vegan ice cream and watch some deep dives to cheer up. Angilas (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs?

I had previously expressed concern that your account looked to be devoted to watering down the mainstream view of WP:FRINGE topics. Now I see you have added a manifesto to your user page that indicates you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I would urge you to take a step back and perhaps work on articles that are unrelated to fringe topics for a while, get to know the community standards and values, and see how collaboration works in less ignitable settings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that my recently penned editing philosophy on attribution should be construed as approaching a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS "manifesto".

From my reading of that advisement, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS warns against "correcting" the content of an article in spite of reliable sourcing.

My recent intent with a certain subset of my proposed edits has been to move "lead verdicts" from unattributed WP:Wikivoice to attribution... in order to reflect the nuanced nature of the existing reliable sourcing already in the articles. Not to mention that:

• I have used Talk Pages in an attempt to try and build consensus
• I have given relevant examples of the style inconsistency from different parts of Wikipedia that cover topics with WP:FRINGE hypotheses:

And likewise, if you feel your stance is correct, it is also your prerogative to propose edits to King Arthur, Pope Joan, and the Loch Ness Monster to better reflect your feeling that unattributed WP:Wikivoice is the superior tack for a lead's verdict. Angilas (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)