User talk:LocusAndLeaf

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia: click on the Introduction link to get started!

Introduction
Simplified ruleset		Your first article
The five pillars		Manual of Style
Task Center		More help pages...

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Do not use AI chatbots or large language models when editing Wikipedia. Their use is nearly always prohibited.

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.

Maintain a neutral point of view.

Take particular care while writing about a living person. Controversial and negative statements must be referenced with multiple reliable sources.

Don't edit war or abuse multiple accounts.

If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.

Do not add advertising, promotional messages, or text that is not related to an article's subject.

Use talk pages to discuss article improvements, but not as a forum for general discussions.

If you have any questions, ask them on the Teahouse or on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Ldm1954 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 21:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LocusAndLeaf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Sterile male plant did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  AntiDionysius (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. An edit that you recently made to Sterile male plant seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. 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. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Plant Gene Expression Center. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I added missing citations and removed text for which I could not find good support.LocusAndLeaf (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (plant, soil, and microbial sciences), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Robertson was added. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Epstein, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ChrysGalley (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Goldberg (plant biologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ChrysGalley (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LocusAndLeaf. Thank you for your work on Robert Goldberg (plant biologist). Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Haselkorn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ChrysGalley (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (genetics), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rafael Palacios was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (applied mathematical sciences)

added a link pointing to Michael Shelley

List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (biophysics and computational biology)

added a link pointing to Arthur Palmer

List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (cellular and molecular neuroscience)

added a link pointing to Edward Herbert

List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (physiology and pharmacology)

added a link pointing to University of Rome

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (applied physical sciences), a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Chipman was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LocusAndLeaf. Thank you for your work on Henry Lord Wheeler. Another editor, Nighfidelity, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for making this article! Have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Nighfidelity}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Nighfidelity (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LocusAndLeaf. Thank you for your work on Melvin M. Green. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LocusAndLeaf. Thank you for your work on Richard Watts-Tobin. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Did he get any awards? Currently his notability is questionable as he only has one major work, that is not fnough.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Watts-Tobin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Watts-Tobin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LocusAndLeaf. Thank you for your work on Roderick Clayton. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you have been warned for AI use in the past and did not respond. Using LLM for article text is prohibited on Wikipedia. This includes talk page comments. Stop using it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to post comments on Wikipedia generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Talk:Richard Watts-Tobin, you may be blocked from editing. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that Talk page. I consulted an LLM to understand what was happening when you repeatedly challenged my work and then nominated the page for deletion, after I’d sourced additional materials and made many changes to address the issues that you raised. My LLM consultation was to help me understand the process, procedure, conventions, and the flags and tags, as it was new to me and it felt confrontational. I inappropriately used some LLM text in my response. I regret this as I now understand that the LLM rules include Talk pages. I won’t use LLM-generated text again. LocusAndLeaf (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Be advised that @Gurkubondibn believes that you have been using LLM to generate many new articles, e.g. the question he asked below. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(You made a typo in my username, so I didn't get a ping, but I saw this by chance)

To address @LocusAndLeaf, I am curious about how you wrote that article. Ldm is correct that I believe that you may have used some AI assistance to do it.

I understand asking a chatbot for help with understanding our policies and guidelines, especially if you are used to using them in general. But you should know that LLMs don't really have a good understanding of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (ChatGPT in particular is bad at this), and I've seen them give users bad or outright wrong advice. The best way to understand them is to read them yourself, or asking for help from other editors (the WP:TEAHOUSE for example is a very friendly place to ask for help). Getting used to all of our guidelines and policies can be a really daunting task, and it's hard to know where to start and where to find all of the policies.

I'm asking because I'm worried that you might get blocked, when you didn't mean to do anything wrong at all. It is clear to me that you actually want to follow the guidelines and that you want to constructively contribute to the project, and I would like to help you with that. --Gurkubondinn 09:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help and patience @Gurkubondinn:. Yes, you are correct that the final text reflects some LLM input, which I deeply regret. As suggested, I spent the last few days reading the Wikipedia policies and information pages, and I have a clearer understanding of what I did wrong. That text triggered extra work by you and @Ldm1954: (to both of you, I'm sorry about that), and the back-and-forth that it led to on the talk page is stressful to me.

Here is what happened and what I did wrong: I myself researched, sourced and wrote the draft, so I know everything checks out and is accurate and is cited correctly. At least I did that part right. Where I went wrong is that I used an LLM in a check of the phrasing in some sentences where I wasn’t confident about the style. That was my big mistake as it ended up as more than ‘basic copyediting’. I now understand it is better to have human-written text that isn't ideal and get someone else to improve it later than to contaminate the content with LLM phrasing. Lesson learned by me the hard way. I do want to follow the guidelines and continue to contribute productively, which I can't do if I get blocked.

I see that there is also a copyright flag on this same page; if I understand correctly, this is a combination of the honors that I listed (a list from a reference, a lesson learned there too) and wording from Ldm1954 that he discussed already. Hopefully this flag is cleared and the page is released, as this was an important scientist that deserves a clean page. LocusAndLeaf (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Could you please clarify if you used an AI to write the article Gareth Thomas (materials scientist)? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LocusAndLeaf. Thank you for your work on John Chipman (metallurgist). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for this clear and well-referenced biography of a 20th century metallurgists. Reaches WP:NBIO and WP:NACADEMIC through both national biographies and scientific output. Appropriately structured and linked.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating the article Mogens Westergaard. It has been reviewed and found to be a good addition to Wikipedia. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LocusAndLeaf. Thank you for your work on Robert W. Hellwarth. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Far too much praise of him here we do not allow that. Please rewrite.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I modified the wording to address your comment. Please have a look now. LocusAndLeaf (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. The wonky comment I would add us that the papers with Feynman read like name-dropping. I checked the first and it very well cited, perhaps the second us as well. Maybe tweak the sentences there. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few more revisions to that paragraph, and I added a reference to the second paper about the polaron. The NAE biography describes that they were close friends - close enough that Feynman was Hellwarth's best man at his wedding, so I think the friendship and professional relationship is worth a brief mention. LocusAndLeaf (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the new article about William L. Russell!

Florificapis (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]