User talk:FallingRocksAhead

Hi there!

I love tidying pages... subheads, section merges, adding alt text. Anything that makes information easier to use for readers. It feels like ironing, but more satisfying. And lasts longer (I hope). I'm new here, so if you have any tips or best practises I should know, drop me a line. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Now that I’ve been here a while, I’ve developed some signature moves that you might notice if you follow my edits:

Person first - Bog bodies were people first, not just curiosities or finds. I try to restore some level of humanity to them when working on articles by giving context about their lives. That includes providing infoboxes, where possible.

Time markers - I like to give time markers in biographies. How old was someone when something happened? Someone receiving a degree in their mid-forties is different than getting it in their twenties. Giving an age adds perspective.

Names matter - When working on archeological sites, I try to explore the first known names of a place. Later names usually reflect usage of later peoples, not those who lived there or left buildings or materials. Decolonization is for everyone! If I know an earlier name or can find it, I try to add it.

Stay on topic - Finally, I work to centre the subject of the article. Science or history (especially military) can drift into narratives not related to the person involved. For women in particular, we often see a lot of content related to husbands, family or children. Important, yes. But cross-links can handle a lot of the heavy lifting if those noted had significant personal roles. The subject of the article should always be the point of the text.

Thanks for reading! If you have a signature move, I’d love to hear it and compare notes. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi FallingRocksAhead! 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! Flibirigit (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind welcome - I will check out those links! FallingRocksAhead (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Bog Bodies

Hi there, I have made a few changes to your recent edits on bog bodies, namely, I would use a picture of the actual body in the infobox rather than a pic of a speculative reconstruction. Also, when rewriting leads, and for nfoboz, dont for get to use wiki-links. Anyway, god edits overall, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement! I was trying to humanize the bog bodies by using images as close to actual faces as I could, for the info boxes. But I take your point - a reconstruction is not the same as the actual body itself. I will make more use of links, as I go. Thank you for taking the time to comment, much appreciated! FallingRocksAhead (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Life is hard as a new wiki editor and can be an unwelcoming place. I see you are already being hassled for introducing "unknown parameters" which only bots can seeL you can delete them from your user page if you want. It's great to see somebody else interested in bog bodies, and don't be discouraged. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot to learn and I get a little shiver every time I see there is a new talk page notice - I'm not sure what thing I'll do wrong next! But overall I'm really enjoying things so far. I'm fascinated by bog bodies and building out the pages little by little has been very satisfying. Thanks again for your kind words. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Luttra Woman

Hi, I've reverted your edit, as it removed essential info. The Luttra Woman's age at her death isn't universally agreed upon, as explained: Dahr assessed the skeleton as that of a young female. Gejvall initially estimated the individual to be a woman aged 20–25 years; however, Sjögren et al. later proposed in 2017 that an age range of 15–20 years was more appropriate. Also please do not use wordings like "is considered" as per WP:WEASEL. You need to make it clear whose opinion it is, especially in a Good Article. BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for letting me know. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Undefined sfn references in Madeleine de Verchères

Hi, in this edit to Madeleine de Verchères you introduced sfn references to {{sfn|VilleVercheres|2026}} and {{sfn|TCE|2026}}. Unfortunately the sources are not define din the article, so nobody can verify them and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing sources it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make the correction instead of reverting my work. I'll be more careful in future. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

And thank you for your prompt attention. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Incomplete reference

Hi. In this edit (labelled as "Updated citation"), you removed a verifiable URL. And replaced it with a reference to source seemingly titled "Kingship and Sacrifice: Old Croghan Man". How can this source be accessed/verified? A search for this term returns nothing at all. No books/works/publications/journal articles/webpages or anything else appear to have this title. Where is this source? Where and when was it published? And how do readers and editors verify it? Guliolopez (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I messed up .... it's fixed now. Thank you for letting me know. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Broch of Mousa, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canmore was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Tommy Prince

Hi FallingRocksAhead, I would like to discuss with you some of your changes to the Tommy Prince biographical article, especially the concepts related to government policy and programs after WWII. Tennisedu (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure. What would you like to discuss? FallingRocksAhead (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Some of the changes do not reflect certainty which is in the records. Tennisedu (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Could you point me to the specific sentences where you think the wording should reflect greater certainty? I'm very open to adjusting the phrasing if the sources support stronger language. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Tennisedu, I was reviewing the Tommy Prince article today and noticed that the recent additions to the Secret recruitment and selection paragraph may have introduced a couple of small editorial issues. The paragraph now repeats the explanation that the "2nd Canadian Parachute Battalion" designation was a cover for the project, and the sentence beginning "Later in 1942 he learned of the creation of a new unit which interested him" reads a bit awkwardly. The final sentence about recruitment for the First Special Service Force also appears incomplete and may need a period and citation.

Would you mind taking another look at that paragraph to tidy it up? Thanks. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Tennisedu – Two substantial sections of work I added have now been reverted without prior discussion. Earlier in this thread I asked for a detailed explanation of the specific concerns with my edits so that they could be addressed collaboratively, but those concerns were not identified.

Reverting large sections without first discussing the issues makes it difficult to resolve editorial disagreements constructively. I am not interested in engaging in an edit war, and I am also not willing to continue investing time editing the article if substantial changes are reverted without discussion.

I have summarized my concerns in detail on the article talk page. I believe documenting those concerns there is now the most constructive way forward.

I will leave the matter to the broader community to review and decide next steps, if any.

Big vs small

Bit of advice: making several smaller edits is easier for others to understand than one big one Polygnotus (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello FallingRocksAhead! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Feedback requested: Later life section for Tommy Prince article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

AI

Hi - are you using AI tools for your edits here? (This includes editing tools such as Grammarly or Quillbot.) If so, please note our guidelines on AI content. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@FallingRocksAhead - your recent edits continue to show signs of AI use. Please respond. Fermiboson (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

AI use is permitted under sparing and limited circumstances – when it acts as a very basic assistant and not to generate content or to make interpretations. I also recognize that anything published is still wholly the responsibility of the editor, who must review intensively before publication. Any tools I use, especially Grammarly and Google Translate, still require my attention to ensure a net positive to the project.

That said, I am aware that AI has been used to undermine and actively vandalize Wikipedia by bad actors. That’s why I didn’t answer the question the first time. Discussion around AI is a hot topic. My concern is that a conversation about LLMs will devolve into a good/bad discussion, and not a review of whether the content in question is a) accurate b) well-sourced c) valuable to the reader and community. I will always engage in a conversation on the merits of a particular piece of writing. I am less interested in a war of words about what tools were used to produce content, assuming the text itself can withstand scrutiny. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

How long have you been reading and writing in German and Norwegian? Editors are allowed to use LLMs for translations provided the editor can verify the output does not have errors. SenshiSun (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair question.

I live in an English-speaking country but was raised by German parents, and German was spoken at home. I have also studied German formally, along with French and Spanish. While I do not claim full fluency in all three, I read them well enough to verify facts directly in sources written in those languages.

When consulting sources in languages I do not speak fluently, such as Norwegian, I use translation tools to understand the text and compare multiple translations to ensure the meaning is consistent. Any information included in the article is then verified against the source itself and rewritten in my own words before being added. As with all edits, I understand that I remain responsible for ensuring the final text accurately reflects the cited source. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@FallingRocksAhead this is direct, but what you wrote here is not your call: I am less interested in a war of words about what tools were used to produce content, assuming the text itself can withstand scrutiny. How you create your content is governed by our WP:PAGs, which in this case are WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMTRANSLATE. The page you linked to above, WP:LLMS#Usage, is not one of our PAGs. It is an information page (admittedly one that needs to be pruned, and should probably just be an essay). So I acknowledge that page is confusing! Your approach - such as apparently using LLMs to rewrite (not just translate) text taken from other wikis , and then misrepresenting this in the edit summary , violates both WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMTRANSLATE. I'm trying to help here... please let me know if you have any questions. NicheSports (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I do believe you are trying to help. But at this point, there seems to be little point in continuing. I learned by visiting the AI cleanup project page that not only my live edits are being scrutinized, so are my sandbox pages, even multiple edits deep on my Matchless Six page where I made notes for myself. As context; after I finish each sandbox draft I go through and mark it up: needs citations, etc, but also reminders of things I need to do next time I log in. Like source a number or a reminder that I need to rewrite something I cut and pasted off the internet so I don’t get tagged with copyvio later. That is enough to trigger a warning and a big tag on the Jane Bell page that it is an LLM violation-suspected page. And that’s personal notes I made in sandbox – not even something I did in live space. Despite the fact that my edit drafts also contain things like temporary subheads and bulleted outlines that I don’t see LLMS coming up with, which seems to have been overlooked. There is nothing I can say or do now that won’t get everything I publish endlessly scrutinized/reverted/questioned. Which is why I was trying to engage about content – not tools. It’s a pity not to spend more time here; I have niche interests just like you do and I have a heart for biographies that are all but lost to history. But someone with a tougher constitution will have to take it from here. We’re now at diminishing returns and my enjoyment is too much at risk. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Samuel Kleinschmidt when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance - I will check out your update to show the difference and follow for future updates. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Paul Egede when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR

Hi, please do not "normalize" citations to anything other than the previously existing citation style. Per WP:CITEVAR, the only style to "normalize" citations to should be the article's established style, which in the case of Maria Einsmann is to use {{sfn}}, the style used by the original author and when the page passed the Good Article process. —Kusma (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)