Jojoraebbit

Welcome!

Hi Jojoraebbit! 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! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Melania (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aesurias thanks for your message : A neutral Wikipedia article should:

Present facts without loaded framing

Avoid stacking critical commentary disproportionately

Avoid suggestive wording

Balance positive and negative reception

This entry heavily emphasizes:

“Highest price ever paid”

“Bribe”

“Campaign advertising”

“Propaganda”

“Infomercial”

“Vapid”

“Induced narcolepsy”

“Gilded trash”

“Trolling”

“Sexual misconduct allegations”

“Two-thirds of crew asked to be omitted”

“Only one ticket sold”

“Review bombing”

“Erotic novel protest”

That accumulation creates narrative direction.

Even if sourced, stacking only negative descriptors without proportional neutral framing shifts tone from encyclopedic to implicitly editorial.

A neutral version would:

Summarize criticism more concisely

Avoid repeating extreme quotes unless highly notable

Reduce rhetorical language

Avoid emotional adjectives

Present reception in tighter summary form I am sure there is others narrative ... Jojoraebbit (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

All of this is supported by reliable, independent sources. It's not really debatable, these are descriptions from the articles and reviewers themselves. Are you also trying to suggest that the director doesn't have sexual assault allegations? – this has been covered by even the most conservative media. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No I do not deny anything about the director I do not know him, but the article here has no balance tone. and is clearly not neutral i am sure there is positive articles about it. Only negatives has been quoted here in proportion Jojoraebbit (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

This may be a discussion you want to start at Talk:Melania (film), where more people will see it. It will help if you present sources agreeing with your point of view. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

ok i need to make some research on the topic but thanks for the tip i am a libra and i want fairness everywhere thanks Jojoraebbit (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jojoraebbit Wikipedia not need present a WP:FALSEBALANCE, if the movie smacks of the above controversy then that has more to do with the actuality, we are not required to play PR doctors for said controversies. Food for thought. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks i did it and just tagged you @Aesurias Jojoraebbit (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

the wikipedia page is about the movie melania not the director so why 2 references has to be presented to sexual allegations, only one is enough, it is repetitive Jojoraebbit (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:COPYPASTE and don't do that, like you did here . Take the time to read WP:COMMUNICATE. The first place to discuss article content is the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your adviced @Gråbergs Gråa Sång i have added a comment in the talk page and rephrase the copypaste I am thankful for your guidance have a nice day Jojoraebbit (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Melania (film)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Melania (film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

ANI discussion related to LLM use and possible sock account

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jojoraebbit is using AI/LLM tools for talk page discussions, possible sock of Tech Bytez who was banned for similar behavior.

Please continue discussion over there at the ANI noticeboard, thank you. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for obvious block evasion, obvious undisclosed LLM usage.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mfield (Oi!) 06:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@MfieldMfield answer below. could you please review it. thank you answer {{unblock|reason= As a new user I didn't knew the use of AI was forbidden, I understood and won't use again thanks for helping me on this thank you Jojoraebbit (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)}

Feels like you're forgetting about a pretty significant part of the reasoning provided for the indef block. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I have answered to @Anachronist here on the talk page. said I understood before being blocked. @Anachronist. It seems you were looking for reasons to get me banned. to reverse edits that has been accepted as they were compliant and legit. as right after i have been banned you asked for the removing of all my accepted compliant edits had been done immediatially after my ban. I am new here.and didn't knew the use of ai to speed up or correct your writing even for a non native speaker was not allowed. I understand now and won't use it again. i respectfully asked to the admin to review this decision, and I am available to provide furter proof. We can even organize a zoom call to prove I am not impersonating anyone as I have been accused of. thank you. @Mfield Jojoraebbit (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I won't address the unbliock, another admin will need to answer that request. I will leave here for them these two diffs though and , only the latter of which is from this account. Mfield (Oi!) 06:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jojoraebbit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have responded to @Anachronist. I would like to clarify that I am editing in good faith and in compliance with Wikipedia policies. I have used AI as I am non native speaker to spead up my writing and was not aware it was forbidden I am happy to jump on a call to dicuss this.I was not aware it was illegal to be helped by AI to write faster my ideas I am happy to clarify any specific concerns about my edits. Jojoraebbit (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To my mind, the block evasion is by far a bigger reason for your block than the use of LLM, and you don't even address that in your unblock request? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2026 (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.

@Anachronist Jojoraebbit (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jojoraebbit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have not address the sock accusation as for me it was so out of subject as I am not impersonating anyone it is my first account on wikipedia and I am new here I am kindly and respectfully asking you to run your tool CheckUser tool WP:SPCU to verify my IP, Logs, Location, I am also available to provide ID, Linkedin or other proof. and compare to the user I am accusing of impersonating. Please take your decision based on real datas as Checkuser, IP, log locations thank you

  Jojoraebbit (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not accused of impersonating another user; you are accused of block evasion. Checkuser is not useful for disproving this (though it can be useful for proving it.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:40, 20 February 2026 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jojoraebbit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hi I hope you are well. detailing a bit more my reasons 1. I have answered to @Anachronist here on the cited talk page. said I understood before being blocked. @Anachronist. I would like to clarify that I am editing in good faith and in compliance with Wikipedia policies. I have used AI as I am non native speaker to speed up my writing and was not aware it was forbidden I am happy to jump on a call to dicuss this.I was not aware it was illegal to be helped by AI to write faster my ideas I am happy to clarify any specific concerns about my edits. 2. I have been wrongfully accused of impersonating someone else .."TECH BEZOS' sock account User which is totally false accusation please check my logs, ip address, location that actually facts that will prove it. 3. It seems that 2 users were looking for reasons to get me banned. to reverse edits that has been accepted as they were compliant and legit. as right after i have been banned the 2 users asked for the removing of all my accepted compliant edits, it had been done immediatelly after my ban. I am new here.and didn't knew the use of ai to speed up or correct your writing even for a non native speaker was not allowed. I understand now and won't use it again. I want to contribute to wikipedia truthfully and in a collaborative way and I respectfully asked to the admin to review this decision, and I am available to provide furter proof. We can even organize a zoom call to prove I am not impersonating anyone as I have been accused of. thank you.Jojoraebbit (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Good faith helps, but it's not the get-out-of-jail-free card you're hoping it is. Every time you do the same thing over that you had done in good faith the first time but had been asked not do again, you forfeit more of that original good faith. It seems you were asked a few times about your use of AI. If your English is not up to this discussion, you should consider editing in your native language.

As for your offers to "prove your innocence", well first, we do not grant such requests here on enwiki, as has been implied in other denials of your unblock requests, whatever they may do on other-language wikis. And second, as for your offers to get on a Zoom call ... I'm sorry. I have to admit that's the first time I've heard someone make that offer, but ... how would that prove anything one way or the other? Years ago I remember someone offering to disprove an increasingly obvious case of sockpuppetry by linking to a YouTube video purporting to show the people behind the two accounts. Can you see why we flatly rejected that? I hope so, because ... we reject your Zoom call offer because nothing you, or anyone put up to being you, could say could possibly prove that someone in an online text discussion is not who we think they might be.

It is with some regret that I take this next step, since you have been nothing less than unfailingly civil and polite, which people in your position are not always, but I must do it all the same, since you have now made three successive requests which basically made the same arguments, all of which have been declined: I am revoking your access to this page so administrators do not have to further waste their time responding. You will still be able to request unblock through email ... I will be leaving a notice here with instructions. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2026 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)