Lothengrun de Spigel

Welcome!

Hi Lothengrun de Spigel! 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, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Kim Hyung-bae moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Kim Hyung-bae. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it has too many problems of language or grammar. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Chang Taek-sang

added a link pointing to Lee Beom-seok

Yi Si-yeong

added a link pointing to Lee Beom-seok

Yun Po-sun

added a link pointing to Lee Beom-seok

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Signing messages

Hello, please make sure each talk page post you make has a signature. You can put four tildes in, like ~~~~, and it'll put your signature in for you. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this Courtesy ping: grapesurgeon, do I put the signature at the end of the message like this? Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Death penalty law has an RfC

Death penalty law has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (In connexion with our earlier discussion.) Docentation (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

- Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello, I'm Bluethricecreamman. A comment that you recently posted seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Editors should not use LLMs to write comments generatively. Communication is at the root of Wikipedia's decision-making process, and it is presumed that editors possess the ability to come up with their own ideas. Your comment may have been collapsed per the relevant guideline. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

do not use LLMs to generate your comments in talk page, its fairly obvious to spot and is against WP:LLMTALK User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Good day, as I've explained in that particular discussion Talk:Death Penalty for Terrorists Law I only applied an LLM as a tool, in order to refine my point by presenting it in the best way possible (that is grammatically speaking) and I've also had explained in that discussion, that I was not aware that LLM use (in particular for grammar/vocabulary refinement) is prohibited when commenting on Talk pages. Of course I [as an independent entity] seek to provide Wikipedia readers the best possible explanation I can find with the limited sources I have available to myself. Anyhow I appreciate your Courtesy ping: Bluethricecreamman concern and your explanation of the prohibition of LLM use in Talk discussions. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Mayors of Seoul infoboxes

Hi, I recently saw that the infobox of Oh Se-hoon was changed to have each term be it's own part of the infobox (rather than having them be combined) and I went through your contributions to try to see a reason and saw that you also did it for other Seoul mayors. I've also seen that you've added Presidents/Vice Presidents to the infoboxes, when they weren't there before. Could you explain why you're made these changes? Most mayors (and politicians) in the world do not have this style of terms (mostly having them combined unless there was an actual gap between non-consecutive terms), plus they don't have the presidents or other higher-office people listed. Having the Himself listed in predecessors/successors is odd for these types of infoboxes. reppop^talk 08:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, on a semi-related note, a lot of your contributions to Lee Ki-poong goes against MOS:PUFFERY (especially something like "remarkable man, albeit a shy individual"). There's also a lot of text in parenthesis or brackets that really shouldn't be in those. I don't really have time to verify the sources and the text, but based on these two errors, I am having somewhat medium confidence about its neutrality and verifiability. reppop^talk 09:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Good day Courtesy ping: Reppop. in relation to the Mayoral template it was meant to provide more clarity on the timeline of each individual, hence Wikipedia readers could use it as a direct reference for their own research, in relation to the "oddity" of listing predecessors as "Himself" I see not issue, since it is factual and backed by sources which I have listed appropriately. Now in relation to the "puffery" of Lee Ki-poong, actually reading about this individual you would find out, he is, indeed remarkable in his loyalty to Syngman Rhee, he is ability to change from position to position with relative ease should be noted with due respect, I [as the individual who has the most contributions currently] have no "personal agenda" to paint a good picture of Mr. Lee, if evidence present a negative aspect of his story then I will dutifully contribute it upon the article. Anyhow I [with all due respect] find it odd that you Courtesy ping: Reppop are against article progress, if anything I think that I am actually incentivizing Wikipedia readers and/or users to contribute if they see a missing detail or a potential structural error [syntax, grammar etc], as an example, the article of Lee Ki-poong [before I "took" over] was quite lacking in detail (which by the way, I wonder why didn't you contribute by creating templates for the Mayors of Seoul, clarifying ministerial positions etc), therefore, again it is actually beneficial that articles are becoming more fluid and more detailed. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Doing what you're done for the infoboxes is bascially making your own template for the Mayors of Seoul, which pretty much goes against what has been done for any elected official with multiple consecutive terms (for example: Ko Wen-je, Tom Bradley (mayor), Anne Hidalgo, etc). It really doesn't make sense to do so since they're basically continuing their term from before without interruption. So, unless you would like to argue that they should be like how you did it, I don't think it should be like that. Also, words like "remarkable" and "unfortunate" are literally mentioned in MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:EDITORIAL as words to watch. I am against "article progress" if said "progress" goes against established consensus and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. reppop^talk 17:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Quite the hyperbole statement "making your own template for the Mayors of Seoul", first of all I am providing, AGAIN, a detailed information to enable both Users and Readers to participate if they want to, which would [most likely] not occur if the timelines are hard to research and extract (which also enables Users and Readers to connect "dots" on particular subjects, i.e., "Who was Mayor of Seoul at X time and what Y event happened at that time). Second each page has it's own "spin" for formatting and you are clearly not qualified to lecture me on particularities when in reality, relatively obscure articles (such as Lee Ki-poong) are not "standard" (as an example the had different formats i.e., 20 Apr 2026 / 20 April 2026 / April 20 2026), hence you should probably stay in your lane and let individuals do their contributions at peace, which leads me to.. Third as you clearly have no idea nor have any interest in researching about Lee Ki-poong, let me tell you that the statement "unfortunate" is a direct quote from the source I provided and "remarkable" is a statement that is backed by the character of Lee Ki-poong, he was, again loyal to Syngman Rhee, he was a patron of sports, he was clearly interested in political and military affairs, doesn't that make him a "remarkable" individual or is it (perhaps) your personal disdain for loyalty, culture, reality etc,(which by the way, are remarkable qualities in functioning individuals) that impacts your opinion. Anyhow I would suggest you to focus on actual contribution rather than wasting other's peoples time. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Telling me to "stay in my lane" and that I'm "clearly not qualified" is very WP:UNCIVIL. What I am trying to tell you is that your edits to the infoboxes of Seoul's mayors go against how officeholders with multiple, consecutive terms have them in their infoboxes, and they should be consistent among all mayoral/politician articles. The second thing is that although you have found words like "remarkable" and "unfortunate" in the sources, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says that "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language", which means that they shouldn't be used like how you've used it in the article. Please note that just because you've done research and contributed a lot to an article, does not mean it can't be scrutinized, criticized, or reverted, as as you do not have ownership of any part of the article (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content). I do not have an opinion on Lee Ki-poong as of writing this, I only told you about that because it's what the Manual of Style has. reppop^talk 23:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Reppop I've modified the article to reflect what you proposed here, if there is any inconsistency or error by all means do notify me. Also I did react with a modicum of contempt precisely because you were clearly overreaching with your rhetoric which I did not appreciate (if anything WP:UNCIVIL would apply to you more rather than me), but alas, I think it was simply a miscommunication on both sides of the conversation and I do apologize for the misunderstanding. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we have very different views of being uncivil. I apologize if my attempts to tell you about Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which all articles use, caused some of the misunderstanding, though I will be clear that I do not appreciate some your comments and phrasing that you have made in this thread (including "clearly overreaching with your rhetoric", see Wikipedia:Casting aspersions). reppop^talk 18:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert: Infoboxes

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality in contentious topics

I think you need to be a bit more careful in contentious topic discussions regarding how you understand neutrality. We understand and expect that editors have their biases. What we expect is that editors operate carefully within the policy bounds of WP:NPOV. An over-reliance on primary sources with a clear stake on an ongoing conflict is absolutely a hallmark of non-neutral editing in contentious topics. Consider, as I mentioned at article talk, the question of whether you'd be as open to using primary sources from Iran and Lebanon to characterize the conflict as sources from Israel and the United States. There's a very good reason to prefer secondary sources in such a case - doing so avoids Wikipedia becoming a mouthpiece for any side of the conflict. I understand you are a new editor and one who has not had much prior exposure to CTOPs so I'm saying this from a place of experience: remember WP:FOC and avoid suggesting editors should not participate because you believe they have a bias, especially when you are quite obviously revealing your own biases at the same time. Formal process will matter you will note I've suggested that this issue would be best resolved on the other page and as an RfC. That is because that is the formalized way to handle this dispute. Be patient, avoid edit warring, follow formal processes and keep your cool and you'll probably be just fine. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

By all means use as many factual sources [primary / secondary / tertiary] (be they Iranian,Israeli,US,Lebanese,Yemeni etc) you'd like. I [personally] have no seat at the game [if Iran does something that is Illegal by International law I would condemn the state, same principal would apply to Israel and America] nor do I play favorites, I do apologize if it (for some odd reason) appears that I'm "supporting" a side. And quite frankly I take it as an insult that you insinuate otherwise. Though, alas, I appreciate the sentiment in you taking the time addressing me directly, thank you for the advice and I'll try to do my best. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topics notices: Iranian politics, US politics

You have recently made edits related to post-1978 Iranian politics. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1978 Iranian politics is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kim Hyung-bae

Hello, Lothengrun de Spigel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kim Hyung-bae, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list

Hi ‪Lothengrun de Spigel‬! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants.

Thank you!

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 18:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Warning: stop before you're blocked

It's high time you stopped harassing 331dot on their page.The next personal attack or assumption of bad faith you make on their page or elsewhere (such as "a false pretext of a dishonest rhetorical play", "falsehood painted as a productive discussion", "Durziil89 displays dishonesty", "are you trolling here or what?", "you like your buddy @Durziil89 are being dishonest in perpetuating your own biases", "Sophistry at its finest!"), you will be blocked. That includes calling people "buddies" for both disagreeing with you. Bishonen | tålk 19:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC).

I'm assuming, per the timestamps, that you didn't see my warning above before you made this string of egregious attacks against 331dot, so you get one more chance to stop. Don't waste it. Bishonen | tålk 19:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC).

Fair enough, I appreciate the warning. My point has been made, hopefully it was constructive and allowed some people to introspect of their personal loyalties in face of evidence. Thank you for allowing me a chance. @Bishonen: Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

SMS D1 moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to SMS D1. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and please refer to WP:YFA and WP:BETTER for guidance on drafting an article and to WP:REFB for instructions on formatting references correctly. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. QEnigma 论 16:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cleo Davis-Urman (May 10)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Johannes Maximilian, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Cleo Davis-Urman to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Lothengrun de Spigel! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or threatening to take legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while any threats to take legal action currently stand.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  331dot (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• This post where you say that the WMF should report an editor to a country's authorities is absolutely a legal threat, using the possibility of legal action as a cudgel in a discussion. This is unacceptable, so you are blocked until you withdraw this. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request by user Lothengrun de Spigel

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).

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

---

Request reason:

User Lothengrun de Spigel were not aware of the ramification of WP:APPEALNLT/WP:NLT, in its specific application to the following passage: "2. Most concerning would be that if @Rht bd is not' a citizen of Bangladesh and/or a government official then this would be a criminal offense per Bangladeshi's own Penal Code Bangladesh: Penal Code, 1860 specifically but not limited to section 170 "Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." this would necessarily require the Wikipedia foundation WP:OFFICE to contact the proper authorities and report a rogue citizen, who abuses the name of Bangladesh to disrupt the principles and regulations of Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding; hopefully this would assist the fact finding process." User Lothengrun de Spigel contend that "Genuine defamation, privacy breaches, copyright breaches, and misinformation, are taken seriously. Gossip, unimportant information, and some private details may also be removed at times." has not been breach, but: 1. "Often, however, people who think they have legal grounds for complaint actually don't according to the law that governs our content." 2. "The Wikipedia community (editors) usually doesn't care about legal threats you make." 3. "They care about our content and our criteria for suitability, quality, and reliability. If they review your complaint and disagree, then a legal threat will not change their mind." 4. "The Wikimedia Foundation legal staff will simply decline to act because of threats if they believe there is no legal case; if there is a legal case or other fair reason they agree with, then a threat isn't needed anyway — they are glad to help." might have been breached due the interpretation of said text; User Lothengrun de Spigel, again were not aware of this distinction, and thought that international/national laws would be applicable to individuals, if they had breach said law (which User Lothengrun de Spigel provided evidence to such as simple example); User Lothengrun de Spigel merely suggested a scenario and did not make an outright legal threat to the individual in question @Rht bd, they merely provided a course of action and left it up to the discretion of administrators and/or the Wikipedia Foundation; which unbeknownst to them violated WP:NLT. User Lothengrun de Spigel also contend that user Courtesy ping': @331dot "where you say that the WMF should report an editor to a country's authorities is absolutely a legal threat, using the possibility of legal action as a cudgel in a discussion." has breached WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:NPOV and/or WP:BALANCE, in their personal interpretation of what user Lothengrun de Spigel might have actually meant; user Lothengrun de Spigel only desired to assist the administrative team to combat potentially disruptive behavior which could have breached WP:MEAT, WP:COI etc, if indeed @Rht bd was a government official and a citizen of Bangladesh; Therefore User Lothengrun de Spigel appeals the block and asks [now that they are aware of WP:APPEALNLT the administrative team, to allow them to remove the second passage from the original post whilst retaining: "1. If @Rht bd is a citizen of Bangladesh and/or a government official as they state in their UserPage, then the invocation of WP:COI and WP:BALANCE would be appropriate; this would necessarily require the removal [per WP:DESYSOP] of WP:NPR rights, though retaining WP:RBK since Wikipedia does benefit from someone who is knowledgeable with the particularities of the region; this would serve as a incentive for @Rht bd to rectify their mistake." This would emphasize only the importance of Wikipedia's own regulations whilst removing any mention of legal and/or illegal action per international/national laws. Thank you for your respective attention and time; hopefully this has brought understanding to this peculiar subject; User Lothengrun de Spigel formally apologizes for implying legal action against the individual @Rht bd which violated WP:NLT; User Lothengrun de Spigel intent was purely coming from a place of WP:AGF in combating potentially disruptive behaviors. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nobody's going to read this WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 10:36, 11 May 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.

Your nomination of Lee Ki-poong has failed

Your good article nomination of the article Lee Ki-poong has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Min968 -- Min968 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2001 Kodori crisis has failed

Your good article nomination of the article 2001 Kodori crisis has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Min968 -- Min968 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)