User talk:Gnomingstuff

This is Gnomingstuff's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Welcome!

Hello, Gnomingstuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Gnomingstuff! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:38, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

“AI version”? What do you mean by this???? On the edit of Kenneth Bøgh Andersen? I didn’t use any AI. I HATE AI. Luka1184 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edit not only shows signs of AI use, but the very first reference I checked contained a hallucination: [Michael Grant...] contacted Andersen, praising it as "Thrilling, fascinating, profound and still somehow funny all the way through," highlighting its appeal in blending dark fantasy with lighthearted yet somewhat dark humor elements. The "highlighting its appeal" bit is AI slop that is not even remotely mentioned in the source, which just shares that Michael Grant said that comment and does not mention dark fantasy, blending fantasy with humor, whether the humor is lighthearted or dark, or really "highlighting" anything at all. There is no possible way that someone who read the source -- which is a three-sentence Facebook post -- can get that interpretation from that source. However, it is the same editorializing that AI does about virtually every source. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it. I did not use AI. But I will change the wording. Luka1184 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems like I was the one hallucinating. I had been reading other reviews at the time, and mixed his up with another. Oh well! Luka1184 (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please refer to Talk:Traumatic Livelihood page regarding yr tagging of article as AI-generated, which is false (i have provided links to my sandbox page); would still like comment on how to write better though since yr writing critiques are valid. // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A curious statement regarding the MACS MTO page : This article may incorporate text from a large language model. It may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. Any such material should be removed. The reason given is: since v1 in 2025; note WP:AISIGNS particularly promotional tone, vocab distribution typical of 2025 LLMs etc.; also notice weird ref plaintext formatting in first diff (February 2026)

Have you read the sources cited in the References? HenriDavel (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use AI for this? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NO. HenriDavel (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing to fr.wp for 15 years ( 5 November 2011). --HenriDavel (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HenriDavel: Si vous avez utilisé Google Translate, DeepL, etc. pour de la traduction, ça compte comme de l'IA. Est-ce-que la page MACS MTO a été traduit comme ça? De la traduction avec de l'IA est autoriséé à condition que c'est verifié par quelq'un qui parle couramment les deux langues. Les détails sont expliqués à Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 14:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn’t use AI for the original French page, but I did use it for the translation. I’ve gone through it again and updated the sources (adding more English-language sources).--HenriDavel (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to thoroughly check the article to make sure it was translated correctly, as AI easily hallucinates, and synthesises sources. Even though you are allowed to translate articles using AI, you must check that everything was translated correctly. You also have to be skilled enough in both languages to clean up after hallucinations and synthesis. (In my opinion, it is probably more work to translate with AI than without.) Also, not having English-language sources isn't an issue. On English Wikipedia, sources can be in any language as long as they are reliable. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the translation. HenriDavel (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misclicked rollback EvergreenFir (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what this is in reference to but no need to apologize! it happens Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) just a heads up, there’s a tickbox in your preferences that forces you to confirm a rollback with a second click instead of it being a direct link :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430 I might need that, thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I like your style Gnomingstuff, keep getting rid of AI stuff :) Hypawthetically (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• +1. Meanwhile, I'm working the other end of the problem -- see the discussion (especially the (a)(b)(c) list) just below the purple box here [1]. EEng 03:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: both of the sections you removed are plausible requests for material to be added to the article. Please be more careful when pruning talk pages under WP:NOTFORUM. Note that WP:TPO forbids you from removing other editors' comments. If a comment can plausibly be interpreted as an attempt to improve the article you must not remove it. – Srleffler (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are the kind of comments that mistake the talk page for customer service, a search engine, or ChatGPT, that have absolutely bombarded talk pages since 2022. If someone wanted to improve the article or ask a question about it, they would mention that, as many people do. These comments spam pages by the literal thousands per month, which you would know if you spent time doing cleanup. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your position. The purpose of talk pages is to provide a place for users to discuss how to improve the article. This includes providing a place for readers to ask for specific content to be added. Removing such requests is WP:BITEY and contrary to WP:TPO. Requests being terse or poorly written is not relevent either, as some readers may be young or not fluent in English. --Srleffler (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the purpose of talk pages is to improve an article, i.e., to ask for content in the article to be added, changed, or removed. The purpose of talk pages is not to spam questions into the void asking for advice on how they can do stuff with lasers, or how to do Q-switching and mode-locking. (Notice that the users in question did not come back or respond or engage in any other way, as they almost certainly would if they wanted to improve the article.) These are questions that are better suited to the reference desk, if anywhere else; this has been standard practice for almost 20 years. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that it's one user, who asked two questions in quick succession 2 minutes apart and then left forever. This is the kind of behavior you see from someone using a search engine or ChatGPT, not someone trying to improve an article. Be serious here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters that the user didn't come back to respond or engage further. WP:TPO generally forbids removing other users' comments. I don't object to pruning comments that are clearly out of scope for the talk page's purpose, but in evaluating this we need to take an expansive view. If the comment can plausibly be viewed as a request for material to be added to the article we should keep it. --Srleffler (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the guidelines in question, as they are not ambiguous about this:

WP:NOTFORUM: [...] article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else. Nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance.

WP:TPO: It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).

Please also stop posting on my talk page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Since you think the content of this article might be delusional, I'd like you to help me remove anything you might feel falls in that unacceptable area, so the error message can be removed. I have sited as many reliable resources as possible. You'll know if you take a look and open those links.

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_Loose_(album) Bubka 95 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As usual the first question to answer is whether you used AI for this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single phrase is AI generated. Do you want me to insert some grammatical errors? Bubka 95 (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use Grammarly or other similar editing/rewriting tools? Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. In fact, I've taken a large portion of it from an official media-kit that was released in 2022 when we didn't have AI tools like the ones you might think I've used. You can suggest if I need to rephrase something, but as far as factual validity is concerned, I can assure you that I've done thorough research and verification for every claim. I'm a student of ethnomusicology at SOAS, and we're strictly not allowed to use AI for writing, including any Wikipedia article that we create or edit. Bubka 95 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A curious statement regarding the MACS MTO page : This article may incorporate text from a large language model. It may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. Any such material should be removed. The reason given is: since v1 in 2025; note WP:AISIGNS particularly promotional tone, vocab distribution typical of 2025 LLMs etc.; also notice weird ref plaintext formatting in first diff (February 2026) Have you read the sources cited in the References? And I didn't use AI for this page. HenriDavel (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I'm here to ask you how exactly you got to the conclusion that the article 'Kerala Institute of Local Administration' was written with AI.

I have been one of the editors who helped that draft become an article, adding in key details like the logo and other information, removing uncited information and submitting it through AfC twice, refining it until it was approved. I have not used AI and I have double checked all the citations on the page to be sure (I added essentially all the citations too). I am not here to argue over the internet but I am here to understand how exactly someone can get to that conclusion. If there is a mistake on my part, please convey it to me. I'm more than willing to try to the best of my abilities to get the article into good shape. Cheers!

KJDKottayam (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I thought about it for a while, I do remember pasting text directly from the source given. I'm curious if that played any effect. Theres no AI involved and the information on the page is only from citations and I assure you that not even one line in the article has uncited important details. Even if the text sounds a bit promotional, doesn't adding an AI label on it seem quite far fetched? A promotional template would be more appropriate. Furthermore, I have repeatedly made edits toning down the promotional sounding wordings as you can observe in the articles history and even before it when the article was a draft. Hope you make the right decision and remove that template. I'm relatively new here and would love to hear your feedback on this matter. Please do reply to me if you need to convey anything.

KJDKottayam (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- it looks like in this case the text in question does indeed come from the news article. That said, copying directly from news articles is very frequently a copyright violation and almost always should not be done, see WP:COPYVIO. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I should then be making a few edits to spin the text to avoid the violation. So there is therefore no reason for the AI generated template to be on the page isn't it? If so would you please take the template down? Cheers!

KJDKottayam (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff, Could you please take the template down? I will be making original text in the article in the coming days. Cheers!

KJDKottayam (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look after you do that, currently however nothing seems to have changed in the text. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Gnomingstuff, and thanks for your interest in AI-generated articles and edits. By investigating women articles tagged AI-generated, I discovered you tagged Women in Pakistan in September 2025. This important article has been under development since the early years and is obviously of key interest to the Pakistani community. As I have been unable to find any recent text which might have been AI-generated, I have removed the tag but would welcome learning why you felt tagging was necessary. Unfortunately, your edit summaries in this connection do not offer any explanations. Hope this is not a huge mistake on my part. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at the article's talk page, I have found your explanations. I'll now look through the additions more carefully and check the citations.

It seems to me that these additions are useful and backed by valid citations, I believe it was therefore in order to remove the tag. I¨ll look for talk page explanations in connection with similar articles.--Ipigott (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you've mentioned on your edit summary on this article of Bacnotan when you added the AI-generated tag, I noticed it days ago, and made an effort to replace everything I could cross-reference from the LLM-generated edits I mentioned here.

Here's the edit revision here of that article to see my edit summaries.

If you could, please check the article if there's anything left of it that are LLM-generated. I have rewrote History based on a book of La Union, I have rewrote Geography, I have removed sections that aren't cited when they were added through that LLM-generated text per WP:BURDEN, and honestly, I'm tired, because when I checked that user you mentioned... they have more edits with the same WP:AISIGNS. It even includes the cities inside the same province as Bacnotan, and I already made new topics regarding those cities.

You should definitely check out their contributions. Please do what you can because it'll be hard to replace everything as they are still active.

Anyway, please check the article I mentioned and see if it's applicable to remove the AI-generated tag. STACKofBRIEFS (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnomingstuff, I am the creator of the article on Mai Ka Lal. Rest assured that any use of AI in this article was confined to assist with the wording of the article. The content in the article is not hallucinated but properly sourced and cited. In any case, I have made edits that tighten the prose and trimmed any appearance of promotional language and made sure the material aligns with cited sources.  Feel free to make any edits or changes you think are needed...or perhaps you could point out the portions you think need changing/removing/or need better references? Many thanks. Scholar165 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced url of the Framing Bhojpuria article with another one for easier access to pdf for confirmation. Also, replaced page numbers of entire Bhojpuria article with exact page number and footnote for authentication. Finally, trimmed prose in the plot.Scholar165 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added url to Cinema Bhojpuri book in Bibliography to facilitate verification of cites from the book. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you.Scholar165 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gnomingstuff, I hope you are well. I am writing regarding your recent edits to the article Open University of Sudan. The version you modified had undergone extensive development and careful review by multiple editors over a prolonged period. It was built through thorough research, supported by reliable sources, and refined by addressing numerous maintenance issues requiring significant collaborative effort over many months, close to a full year. However, your recent edit replaced this well-developed, stable version with a significantly older and much weaker version of the article. This change removed key elements such as references and substantially reduced the overall quality and reliability of the content. I have since restored the previous stable version to preserve the integrity of the article. At present, it is unclear why these changes were made, as they appear inconsistent with Wikipedia’s standards and best practices. I kindly ask that you refrain from making disruptive edits of this nature in the future. Please ensure that you fully review the existing content, sources, and article history before making substantial changes. If you believe improvements are needed, I strongly encourage discussing them on the talk page first to reach consensus. We all share the goal of improving Wikipedia, and respecting the work and time invested by fellow contributors is essential to that process. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Kind regards, Shakirex (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no,absolutely not ,look at the resources, check the information, Shakirex (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you, sorry. so that is itself against policy. Everything about edits like this and this, from the text to even the edit summary, is exactly like the thousands of AI edits that get produced on Wikipedia. And not only that, exactly like how AI presented in mid-2025 specifically.

Your initial post here, for that matter, also sounds like AI, especially given the enormous gulf between the writing style of it and the comment you just left. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have an opinion on this, and your topic's text has Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. Look at how flowery it is from "well-developed", "reliability", "extensive development", "careful review by multiple editors over a prolonged period" puffery.

This is Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "extensive development" and "prolonged period" in editing articles.

I checked the article, and the revisions you made on the article looks LLM-generated, and your reply to Gnomingstuff is different in writing style to the wall of text you made.

Please avoid copy-pasting LLM-generated texts. Check Wikipedia:NEWLLM for a short read on the guidelines for LLM-generated content. STACKofBRIEFS (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was browsing the user creation log and I noticed an editor named "Agentnet" was recently created. Immediately, they put an article I'm very confident was LLM generated in their sandbox (see [2]) and then submitted it as a draft to AfC.

I realize, I don't actually know the procedure for cleaning up this kind of thing? So I figured I'd bring the matter up with an editor who does.

Have a lovely day. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 06:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- it looks like the draft was deleted already. Anyway though for more broad advice, it's still being worked out, options include tagging, AfD/prod, nuking it to a stub, depending on judgment Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnomingstuff,

Thank you for your recent comments regarding the articles I have edited. To address your concerns constructively, could you please indicate which specific passages in House of Dust, Specus Corallii, or the other architecture‑related articles you believe contain invented information or material not supported by the cited sources? All content has been written on the basis of published, third‑party reliable sources, and I am fully available to review any section in detail.

These articles deal with specialised topics in architecture and architectural history, where assessing whether a passage is “authentic” or accurately reflects the cited literature often requires familiarity with the subject matter and with the sources used. For this reason, it would be helpful to understand which exact parts you consider problematic, so that we can verify them together against the published references.

As noted in WP:AISIGNS, stylistic impressions alone are not sufficient to justify an AI‑generated tag; what matters is whether the text is verifiable, neutral, and supported by reliable sources. If you can point to the specific sentences you are concerned about, I will gladly examine them and correct anything that does not comply with WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOR.

Thank you for your collaboration. Stamati Bulgari (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

As noted on the article talk pages, I have already provided a full explanation regarding permitted AI use under WP:LLMUSE. To address your concerns, I must again ask that you identify the specific sentences in the architecture‑related articles that you believe are unverifiable or not supported by the cited sources.

Without concrete examples, your concern cannot be evaluated in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN.

If no specific passages are indicated, I will consider seeking further input through the appropriate noticeboards. Stamati Bulgari (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "seeking further input through the appropriate noticeboards" is going to go very well for you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.

At this point, I have answered your question regarding permitted AI use and have repeatedly asked for the specific sentences you believe are unverifiable or not supported by the cited sources. No concrete examples have been provided.

For transparency and proper dispute resolution, I will proceed to seek input from the relevant noticeboards so that the matter can be evaluated by uninvolved editors. Stamati Bulgari (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. But as I said, it is almost certainly not going to go well: not only using AI for almost anything in articles is prohibited per our AI guidelines -- so in other words, every single sentence that involves AI is in violation of the guidelines -- but using AI on talk pages, as you are clearly doing here, is also against Wikipedia guidelines.

The best thing you can do is stop using AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.

To clarify: Wikipedia’s AI guidelines require editors to identify specific sentences that they believe were generated by AI or that violate WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOR. You have not indicated any such passages.

Your assessment appears to be based on a general impression rather than on verifiable evidence tied to specific text. If you believe that any particular sentence was produced by AI, please quote it so that it can be reviewed.

Absent concrete examples, I will proceed as indicated and request input from uninvolved editors. Stamati Bulgari (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnomingstuff.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing (12 days) so although I have tried to familiarise myself with Wikimedia style, processes, etc, please excuse me if I inadvertently stray from Wikipedia nomenclature in what follows.

On 9 April I made some edits to the "List of Gospels" page. I notice that you undid all (I think) my edits on 11 April, with the explanation that you were "rv (reverting?) suspected AI edits". I notice from your talk page that your first question to correspondents who query your edits is "did you use AI, yes or no?". My answer is an unequivocal "no I did not use AI" in editing the "List of Gospels" page, or at least not knowingly (who knows these days?). So could you please explain to this newbie why my edited article seemed to you to have AI involvement, so I can avoid this in future. I'm particularly interested to hear your thinking with regard to your re-inclusion of the comment "potentially a canonical gospel" to the Gospel of Mary, which I deleted on the basis that it was unreferenced opinion. Do you know of a citation that would justify re-including this statement? Taking all this into account, can I re-revert the article back to my edited version?

Apologies for taking up your time, but I guess this is the way I'll learn what and what not to do.

All the best Dropbear2 (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to pester you, but I wanted an opinion from an editor who's more experienced with dealing with AI and has a better nose for this kind of stuff. I think I've found a possibly LLM written page in the wild again. This time, at the main page for Wikipedia:Help_Project, but I'm not confident.

I saw a lot of rule-of-threes WP:AISIGNS, and some of the vocabulary feels overly corporate. It also seems overly general, like it's not describing particular things an editor can do to help maintain information pages and the pages in the Help: namespace, and it's just extrapolating good ways to contribute to a wiki with vague notions of streamlining instructions. I put the page source through GPTZero (though I know machine AI detection can be unreliable) and got a 71% confidence it's AI generated.

I checked the version history, and it seems an editor has rewritten the page from scratch to replace this version, which I felt was a lot more preferable. Regardless of whether the new version is AI generated or not, I think I might discuss reverting to the old version just because I think it's more friendly and seems more informative.

Please let me know what you think. I don't really want to accuse an editor of rewriting a page with AI if I'm not sure. I'm aware it also wouldn't be prohibited if it is AI generated, as the edits predate WP:NOLLM and the page isn't in mainspace, but I still think it would be preferable to have a human written main project page. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologies. They've mentioned using AI for various Wikipedia-related tasks on that very talk page, so it probably is AI just via Occam's Razor. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that; I think that's reason enough too, but I figured it might be a bit unfair to assume an editor is using AI to the detriment of the project just based on the fact that they have a positive opinion on AI.

In any case, I'll probably bring up the matter on that very same talk page, then. Thank you very much for the second opinion! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 05:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kate Ryder, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. I think you would be a good administrator, and you appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already! Interested in becoming an administrator? Check out some RfA advice, or ask a nominator about next steps!

@Gnomingstuff I think you would make a fine admin, the amount of AI slop you clean up without a mop is serious very impressive. Just wanted to give you a nudge with the WP:AELECT coming up. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate the thought, but hell no, like the strongest possible no Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ha, I can respect that! If you ever change your mind or think it would help with dealing with AI slop just know that I would be proud to be in your corner. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but seriously @Gnomingstuff, lotta of respect. I deal with like one or two chunks of AI slop, feel real proud of myself, then when I look at your contributions I realize how little I really did! Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello can you show what seems AI here I'm curious I just found about this very randomly. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Focus_(2015_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1311965576 ~2026-25764-74 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This rewrite from 2025. The user in question has made thousands of AI rewrites of various articles, some of which left in ChatGPT URL parameters, and most of which seems to have not been reviewed. In the Focus article, someone else noticed in June that the plot rewrite introduced some factual errors. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you for letting me know. I click on Random article most of the time and never saw this before . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-25764-74 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- I try to leave an explanation these days, this was something I tagged awhile back. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted your tag of Gareth Thomas (materials scientist). While I was not a great fan of Gareth, and I do not believe that he ever wrote a letter for me, I know that there are no hallucinations in that article. It is a fair, neutral depiction, which is why I passed it at WP:NPP after some minor editing. I think it is critical to be cautious and careful about tagging for AI without evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a longstanding pattern with this user. They were warned for LLM use in January, and did not reply. Instead, they continued their pattern of AI editing, which includes both articlespace and talk page comments. (Please read WP:AISIGNS and then you will know how blatantly obvious that comment and their other comments are as AI. We have all seen thousands of near-identical cases, this is not subtle.) There is very little reason to believe they suddenly stopped.

AI use is prohibited on Wikipedia no matter what. It doesn't matter how good you think it is. There is no carve-out for "I know this guy though." Using AI to generate or edit article text is not allowed, period, end of. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the editor; I knew Gareth Thomas so I can attest to the content of the text. If LLM generates hallucinations then it is wrong and should be deleted. However. please note that WP:G15 has the title G15. LLM-generated pages without human review, my addition of the bold. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and therefore... I did not... put a G15 template on it? G15 is specifically for speedy deletion, and I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion. What are you even talking about? Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for posterity that this user has refused to answer why they made this comment or even acknowledge the fact that they did so, and deleted my post asking why they did.

However, the comment is right there. I'm not being gaslit. It is right there. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely untrue. I told you twice on my talk page that this was pointing out that only LLM-generated pages without human review are considered major problems. This is what someone else told you much before. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does the term "G15" refer to? Specifically, what process? Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you use twinkle to tag a page CSD:G15 the text is G15 Unreview LLM content. The title of WP:G15 is G15. LLM-generated pages without human review. These indicate that by policy, severe LLM is cases where there has been no human review, i.e. post editing and correction. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is "CSD" an acronym for? Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use Twinkle? If so press the TW tag and look, it brings down a menu for Speedy Delete, PROD, AfD, Maintenance tagging etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know what CSD is an acronym for. Obviously, because I have said what it's an acronym for above.

What I am trying to say is please just apply this logic to literally anything else:

• G3 means that articles that are gross vandalism can be speedy-deleted. That doesn't mean that vandalism in existing articles isn't considered a major problem, or that if someone inserts "penis penis penis" into the article on Thomas Jefferson that it shouldn't be dealt with immediately. It just means that only that narrow subset of article can be speedy-deleted, and that adding G3 to the Thomas Jefferson article would be inappropriate.
• G3 also applies to articles that are blatant hoaxes. That doesn't mean that false statements in articles aren't a major problem that should be corrected immediately. It just means that only blatant hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion.
• G11 applies to blatant spam articles. That doesn't mean that promotional content is not considered a major problem. It only means that there are more appropriate ways to fix it than speedy deletion.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point here is that just because something is not eligible for speedy deletion -- two words you seem to be reluctant to utter, for some reason -- does not mean that it isn't a problem, or even a major problem. By that logic, virtually all of the other efforts across Wikipedia, from AfD to the typo team, would not be worth doing, because only a select few things are eligible for speedy deletion. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I and many others have disagreed with your approach. While unreviewed LLM is an obvious problem, reviewed and repaired LLM is not. I am not the only person who has expressed this opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are those "many others" in the room with us right now? They certainly haven't been the prevailing opinion in the multiple RfCs that have taken place on the topic of AI-generated content over the past several months. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Reviewed and repaired LLM" is still a problem. I would actually be fine with a permanent stamp of shame on articles created by LLM and "fixed" or "saved" by other editors, since LLM use is intrinsically a shameful act. No one who does it should feel good about themselves. No one who countenances its use should feel good about themselves. If Wikipedia survives this wretched period of history, then we should show our scars and indicate, on each article that has been polluted by LLM slop, the time period during which that pollution persisted. Doing less would be letting our readers down by hiding how far we failed to achieve our purpose.

I recognize that this may be an extreme position, but it is mine. On a more temperate note, and more focused on the issue at hand, the problem is that the standard of G15 is not relevant, whereas the standard of WP:NEWLLM is. And WP:NEWLLM does not have an "other editors gave it the all-clear" escape clause. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record this is a bit more extreme than my position, but I do think that existing AI-generated text should be disclosed: because this is the minimum expectation basically everywhere else, from novels to journalism to scientific publishing, and because Wikimedia is actively soliciting (and getting) donations from people by telling people it's the human-written alternative to AI. If I donated $50 because I was told the writing on Wikipedia wasn't AI-generated, and found out later that it actually was, I would want my $50 back. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the frustration, very evident on this page, I do think it's worth pulling back on comments like the leaving it alone like the little girl/boy one, at least in formal structured discussions such as RfCs. CMD (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the things that have been said include stuff like everytime I see an AI-cleanup notification I assume it is incorrect. These efforts are coming across as AI-witch hunts I think that is a more than fair summation. Especially given that they have not apologized, nor does anyone seem to care if they do or not. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't note this out of concern for overall fairness, but out of considering a reading of it that lacks knowledge of stuff like that comment (hence my note of formal structured discussions, which are intended to be seen by uninvolved and therefore unaware editors). CMD (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like that comment is directly relevant to the discussion. If even something as small as adding a cleanup tag to an article will draw this level of opposition from people, then the noticeboard shouldn't be formalized because clearly there is not actually consensus. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. May I ask how do you usually check a text for AI presence? I have my suspicions about this piece of text, something feels off about it: Runway (song)#Reception. But I don't know what tools I should use to check. I hope I'm wrong, I just wanted to look into it. Sorry for bothering you and thanks! Sricsi (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. tl;dr: in this case it probably is

So for this article, just skimming through it, displays a lot of the specific AI-related linguistic signs and especially the ones idiosyncratic to AI-generated entertainment articles: every review "highlights" or "emphasizes" something, usually it talks about reflecting/showcasing/etc a blend of X and Y, etc. Which isn't a guarantee on its own, but this kind of phrasing is shockingly uncommon in writing about music elsewhere, especially prior to 2023, and especially in any kind of sustained consistent manner. (For instance, throughout the entire history of Pitchfork, where hundreds of writers over dozens of years have covered tens of thousands of songs and videos, none of those writers have ever used the phrase "highlighted the video's," and have only used the phrase "highlighted the song's" once; meanwhile on Wikipedia it's hundreds of times by many different unrelated editors and almost always after 2023. Same for Spin, NME, Stereogum, etc. I know it's hard to believe but you can see it happening.)

Next step is to figure out when the text was actually added -- if it was prior to 2023 (technically November 2022 but in practice 2023 is easier) then it can't be AI. Obviously since this song just came out that isn't a problem but you still need the original diff(s). There are a lot of them in this case, this is one of them.

This is the point where I'd feel comfortable tagging something, but to do further investigation you could check the editor's concurrent edits to see if the pattern is the same across them, and/or pre-2023 edits to see if they have a similar writing style and are less likely to be AI (in this case they don't have any though). If I feel like I'm going to have a hard time convincing other people, or if it's a GA/FA where the stakes are higher, then I'll do a check for source-to-text integrity. Usually I start with the stuff that displays the AI signs above. At this point blatantly made-up sources are rare -- since LLMs can search the web and/or have sources provided to them as context -- but usually, the sources are poorly summarized.

So in the diff above, literally all of that text is either directly plagiarism or overly close paraphrasing of the source (and I kind of suspect that source is itself AI-generated). Elsewhere, with Elle's Starr Bowenbank further highlighted the song's emphasis on confidence and visibility, framing the runway as a metaphor for embracing public attention, the article does not actually mention the runway being a metaphor; the only time it talks about it at all is either directly quoting the lyrics, or saying that it's a reference to Runway magazine. With Variety's Jazz Tangcay noted that the clip includes scenes inspired by Milan Fashion Week, aligning with the film's fashion-centered narrative, and highlighted its emphasis on high-fashion aesthetics and attitude., the writer only mentions Milan Fashion Week to say that a scene in The Devil Wears Prada 2 took place during it, not that there are any clips in the video inspired by it. And the rest is just AI word salad. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does help a lot. What you said about the phrasing is exactly what felt off for me — every sentence reads like "here's a piece of text, now summarize it in one line", which is very AI-ish in tone. I wasn't sure how to properly check for that beyond just intuition, so I appreciate you walking through your process. Sricsi (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's less the summarizing itself, more the summarizing via those specific phrases used in those specific ways. AI-generated text, especially about music/movies/etc, uses them almost all the time, and pre-AI articles almost never do. They aren't the problem per se, they're just strong indicators that the text is likely to be AI. Like just looking at other Lady Gaga songs, Poker Face, Bad Romance, Shallow, etc, they all read differently. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I've added the "AI-generated template" to the article until these issues are addressed. Sricsi (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Enby has given you a fox! Foxes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Your fox must be fed and given headpats three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fox, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. For all your efforts in helping deal with AI cleanup! I understand that it can often be a thankless job, but we're all more than happy to have you here – and don't forget to take some rest if you're ever feeling overworked!

Give someone a fox by adding {{subst:Fox}} or {{subst:Fox2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the United States Senate, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senator Chambers was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnomingstuff,

I see you deleted the "Neurodevelopmental effects" subsection of the Fluoride page's Safety section. I just wanted to let you know that my rewrite of that section (which constituted a good portion of the now-deleted material) was written entirely by me with no LLM input.

I decided on a rewrite because the section provided an unbalanced characterization of the Taylor study. It falsely portrayed the monogram's companion review as a separate work and omitted criticisms of the study from both within and outside of academia. Upon review, I see how the final sentences of my rewrite can echo the superficial analysis of a chat bot, particularly the "bothsidesism" format. Know that this was an attempt by me to placate the anti-fluoride brigade and prevent an edit war. I'm also struggling to think of an alternative phrasing that doesn't dig uncharacteristically far into the weeds of the monogram's critical responses while still maintaining encyclopedic brevity. If you have tips on how this section should've been rewritten while sounding less like a clanker, please feel free to let me know.

I also believe that, in general, the subsection deserves a spot in the Fluoride article in light of heightened public interest and debate, which has in turn bled into the work of state- and federal lawmakers in the U.S. Given you have more experience with Wikipedia than I do, I'll leave the question of whether to eventually re-include the subsection to you and other editors.

GyozaDumpling (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing like noted for highlighting the need for additional high-quality research on the subject matter is inappropriate no matter where it comes from. Calling something a "need" is an opinion; someone may well think that no research is needed on any given topic. Also, I don't have the paper, so I can't confirm whether this is the case or not, but "highlighting" has an actual meaning; if someone just offhandedly mentions something without any particular emphasis, that doesn't count. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit [3], where you added a template about possible LLM use to the article Seeing Like a State. Since the template is still around after 8 months and has not been acted on, I was wondering if you could identify the sections or edits that concerned you. Perhaps it was this series of edits by User:Y-S.Ko?

You didn't include an edit summary or any reasoning in the template, so it's a bit hard to tell where the issue is.

Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that series of edits, it's like parody levels of straight down the line exactly what AI slop would look like in February 2024 (and their other edits recently, "removing LLM made text" elsewhere that was originally theirs, seem to confirm it) Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason you didn't just revert those edits? I can do it now if that's all it takes to remove the template. Cheers, CommonsKiwi (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was in September so I don't remember what the exact situation with this article or edit history was without checking, but with older edits it's not always possible to just revert depending on how much the article was edited afterward Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the text added by that user. Some of it had been copyedited since being added, but it still was in one piece. Please tell me if you have any concerns! Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it looks like you have cleaned up the LLM-generated text that Y-S.Ko inserted. Thanks for taking care of it, --Gurkubondinn 17:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Cheers, CommonsKiwi (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The section added in Special:Diff/1353265938 was incomplete, I've removed it for now. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, forgot I opened it Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I cleaned up her page, let me know if it looks good before I remove your template (unless you'd like that honor). Thank you! ParXivalRPT (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at this page (oldid as it is now a redirect) while trying to merge it. A lot of sources don't work, like [3] and [4], while [5] is about an unrelated topic. Perhaps a more academic question as it's now a redirect and I didn't copy over the text due to the source issue, but does this seem like llm I missed? CMD (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably - not much text but what text is there does really seem like AI, and more importantly the "Impacts of certification and protected areas on forest loss in Cameroon" article does not seem to exist (no google hits by that name, link dead, params messed up on wiki arrival) Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, yep, another source that doesn't exist. Probably most of them. Don't have time to unpick a potential wider case this month but appreciate the second opinion. CMD (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope I'm not bothering.

Seems to me (and lots of editors) that you're very reputable in identifying AI-generated content. I've flagged my share of articles but these ones have me a little uncertain due to the user which added these texts. Tell Her Everything, The Changeover, All the Seas of the World, and Puck of Pook's Hill just seem rather... weird to say the least.

The signs are helpful, no doubt, but I also use another telltale sign which really confirms it being likely AI-generated. Haven't raised discussion about it yet as I'm a bit unsure where to.

PeepeeDino (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that I have made some major changes to this page, specifically addressing your concerns about "Undue emphasis on significance" and "Obsession with exploring themes", hence I removed the AI Slop flag.

If you wish it to be retained could you outline what else needs to be edited? Thank you. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article needs to be written without AI, actually in accordance with sources that were read. Right now, much of it is virtually identical to the original version. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, those "concerns" are not the point. They are simply the explanation for tagging the article as AI-generated. This is like saying that someone was spotted on security camera footage and responding that you addressed the concerns by erasing the footage. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kfar Netter, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agricultural Union was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that cleanup on ZenQuest Martial Arts Center. That content was partly because way back when I made the article the notability was challenged, and partly because I was a less experienced editor. Thanks.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I very much enjoy, and very much agree with, your highlighting of the vapid and useless statements from Ms. Deckelmann (amongst others.) Thank you for being an exemplar of WP:SPADE. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the personal attacks. I've raised your other attacks and personalization's elsewhere, but this also includes comments like this, where you accuse me of trying to silence criticism through emotional manipulation, when all I'm doing is asking editors to follow the civility standards that the community has agreed applies to VPW. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting on my talk page about things you have already repeatedly and exhaustively told me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I share your strong disapproval of the WMF's unreasonable layoffs, and agree in principle that actions matter more than words, so I hope my comment here can be a friendly note of strategic support and not just tone policing: I fear that comments like these [4] [5] direct attention away from the core issues at stake. I encourage you, as a matter of pragmatic tactics, to comment from a position of obvious moral high ground (including through rhetoric), and to comment only on things that you desire to gain more attention. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, but I am already beyond well aware of this excruciating series of posts so please — this goes for anyone reading as well — please please please do not ping me or post on my talk page about things I already know about Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like a statement or explanation on what is perceived as A.I. on the article for gyaru. I know I've made a few edits on that article but I need clarification on what or which part of text is considered A.I. written. Thank you. ~2026-32987-50 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who added the text, so you're the one who knows the answer to this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's understandable but I've never used A.I. not only now but also previously; as A.I. as it is today didn't exist! I know that they were recent additions that I tried to correct (such as "baby gyaru" terminology) but I initially never intend on making such additions or discussing these topics and only other users have added these terms or information. Can you please specify what is A.I. so I can change the text tone or perception of A.I. in said text? ~2026-32987-50 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to edits such as this, which is the exact kind of AI text we get regularly. (This is only one example, not the only one.) There have been a lot of reversions and temporary accounts so I'm not sure who added it.

However, the problem is not the tone, the problem is the use of AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply (depleted battery). That is one of the edits I also assumed to be A.I. though I didn't write that particular edit & I use temporary accounts for the most part on Wikipedia but that one isn't mine. The problem which I have with that edit (for example); is that I focus mostly on the early period of gyaru and not as of recent which makes that addition problematic as not only the probable A.I. use but also that as this period is of 2019 till now there is barely or any info about it. If you can give me more examples I'll try to fix them with both citations and proper tone. Thank you. ~2026-32997-70 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1967, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (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) 20:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newtown, Birmingham, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Churches and Connections were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Bantu peoples of South Africa. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. You can also install the userscript found here to help find and eliminate these errors. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It seems you missed my comment on Talk:Badhan, Sanaag#AI. Please reply. Freetrashbox (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I left a comment on Talk:Badhan, Sanaag#AI. Please reply. Freetrashbox (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I read that section from the edits made in expanding the article and I'm quite shocked how Sawoo45 missed that the subsection was already there so he's rewriting the whole thing under duplicate subsection name. Also it reads as war fiction (great victories, powerful and independent) and basically WP:PUFFERY. My only question is should I undo that edit or cleanup the section? Sddarealone (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have started working on cleanup ising your list. When I clean up an archive should I remove it from the list? In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 01:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your tag on Abbey of Saint-Jouin-de-Marnes, has there been a discussion somewhere on LLM use either in OKA articles in general or in Leaanah's articles in particular? I've been aware for a long time that L's translations need further work to bring them up to standard and have tried to try to fix the translation issues on some (my particular focus is on churches and monasteries) but had not realised that there was an LLM issue as well as possible machine translation ones. If I improve the translations and check the references is that enough to remove the LLM tags? Ingratis (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) January's mega-thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive378#OKA: problematic paid translation and lead rewrites via LLMs across thousands of articles. resulted in specific warnings and restrictions for OKA translators. Leeanah is one of the translators called out. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 14:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify two points here:

A) This was an older tag, there are people who have demanded that all 6,000 AI-generated tags since 2024 have a corresponding talk page section even if the rationale is clearly visible in the tag, or else they will remove the tag for procedural reasons; and so I am still slogging through this busywork

B) I haven't tagged all of their articles, the only ones I tag in this case are ones I run across by searching for standard AI signs Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the discussion, which I found very informative. Ingratis (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]