Welcome!
Hello, STACKofBRIEFS, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Yue🌙 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the welcome and taking actions on a certain article. I didn't know you can write {-{help me}-}. I used it immediately following that user replying to me with AI-generated texts again.
- I will try read the help pages again to make sure I get the guidelines as much as possible and will ask questions if I have some. Again, thank you. STACKofBRIEFS (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Help me
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hello, I need help for opinions regarding an article I edited few days ago which is Arthur Katalayi. If one checks this certain user's contributions: Special:Contributions/~2026-18416-83, they have seemingly created their account just to manual revert that article and then accused me of breaking several guidelines and threatened to call the "AIV": Talk:Arthur Katalayi#c-~2026-18416-83-20260324182700-~2026-18417-27-20260324171000
After that, they went to Requests for page protection/Increase and accused me of SPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1345180164 . They were denied by an administrator who states they were using AI to write their requests: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=next&oldid=1345183742
I didn't know that they were using AI after replying to that user, but they then replied with this:Talk:Arthur Katalayi#c-~2026-18416-83-20260325032800-Yue-20260325022100 This user was already warned by an administrator for COI, yet they replied to that same article with an AI-generated text again.
I then replied with observations proving they're not discussing in good faith by pointing out mistakes on their texts: Talk:Arthur Katalayi#c-STACKofBRIEFS-20260325123500-~2026-18416-83-20260325032800
What I'm asking is: If a user is clearly not discussing in good faith and is withholding an improvement of an article through AI-generated text in discussions which can really waste other people's time not being able to edit that article, should one still try to improve the article at the risk of being manually reverted back by that user for no reason other than their AI-generated texts?
The administrator already added an AI-generated tag to that article, and I really wish to improve it by cross-referencing this revision which added those texts that this temp user reverted back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Katalayi&diff=prev&oldid=1312164143 If there's anyone who can see this, please advice and if you can, take actions. STACKofBRIEFS (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- For something like this, you have to play the long game, and realize there is WP:NODEADLINE. Whatever bad behavior they are engaging in, let's say constant and unwarranted reverts, you have to make sure that your edits are completely aboveboard, no matter what the other guy does. Does this mean they will "win" for a little while? Yeah, probably. Just calmly, patiently, describe on the article Talk page how their approach is contrary to some policy or guideline, and avoid getting into edit wars with them. If they are using AI, you can quote WP:AITALK in your replies on the Talk page. Sooner or later, they will accumulate enough messages on their Talk page from different editors unhappy with them, and then you (or someone) can take them to WP:ANI and let administrators deal with their pattern of misconduct. But if you get down in the mud with them, then when it goes to ANI, you both will have problematic behavior and you won't get anywhere. It's easier if you get other editors to work with you, but it's really key to not get sucked in to violating standards just because they are doing it, and (seem to be) getting away with it.
- If their behavior is already a repeated pattern of misconduct and yours is blameless, you can go to the AI Noticeboard and ask there.
- As far as should you still attempt to improve it? Depends how devoted you are to the topic. A couple of approaches: add some content (make sure it's good, well sourced, and not too big; a paragraph is good) and then if they revert it, so be it; now your content is in the page history and can be recovered, after they end up getting blocked. Then add another paragraph (different from the first; not other words for the same thing), and keep doing it; it can all be recovered later. Alternatively, add your content to the Talk page instead for discussion as a proposed addition. Keep adding to it, until you're done. (If it is very long, you can use a subpage to hold it.) Later, you can come back and move it from the Talk page to the article, when they aren't around anymore. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Subject: Final Warning: Disruptive Editing and Tag Bombing on Arthur Katalayi
|
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
|
Hello. Your recent edits on the Arthur Katalayi page, specifically the mass deletion of 21,000 characters and the repetitive addition of maintenance tags despite the March 23 Start-Class upgrade by four WikiProjects, are considered disruptive editing, gaming the system and tag bombing. Please note that this article has been audited and promoted by WikiProject West Virginia, Africa, USA, and Biography. Persistent refusal to acknowledge community consensus and reliable sources (WSJ, Rider University, CNN, Bloomberg, AstraZeneca deal) may lead to your account being reported to the Administrators' noticeboard for a block. By ignoring this consensus and 26 years of verifiable international sources you are violating the core policy of Neutral Point of View. Consider this your last warning . FuturistMetals (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC) | |
- Your messages in Talk:Arthur Katalayi are already tagged by another editor associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup as made by an LLM. Your messages here are proof of bad faith: #1 & #2, alongside other users with the similar style of "writing" in that Talk page.
- You should go take your concerns through an admin instead of writing on someone's talk page with an LLM message again. Stop wasting other people's time. STACKofBRIEFS (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have collapse the topic as I think the user wrote LLM text, and has been blocked from Wikipedia. Instead of deleting this, I will keep this for others to look at for examples on LLM-generated texts.
- Please check: Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing STACKofBRIEFS (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)