User Talk: FilipeMRGouveia

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome, FilipeMRGouveia!

thumb|upright=.8|alt=A plate of chocolate chip cookies on a blue and white striped plate. The plate sits on a beige surface.|Have a plate of cookies! ↗

Welcome to Wikipedia ↗, FilipeMRGouveia! I'm Mujinga, and I've been assigned as your '''mentor'''. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits ↗. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here ↗ to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Just dropped by to say hello

Hi, I appreciated your edits to Hovdala Castle and got curious so stopped by at your user page. It's unusual to see a relatively new user make such constructive and quality edits as you have done, so I thought I'd say hi and give you some encouragement. I have a strong connection to Skåne as well, and it made me happy you've found your way there and seem to be enjoying it. If you ever need any help with editing something about Skåne feel free to reach out, perhaps I could be of help. In any case, good editing! PS. I also enjoy hiking. Yakikaki (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:Hello Yakikaki, thank you for the lovely message! Contributing to Wikipedia has always been something that lingered in the back of my mind. I had tried to engage a few times over the years but I always found it very difficult to get into. I believe the UI improved over the years and this time I have found it easier to get into it. I also realized that articles relating to Portugal are often quite incomplete or written with poor language, so even if my edits aren't perfect, they're better than not doing anything :).
:With Hovdala castle I visited it last weekend and on my way realized that the article could use a bit of love. We'll see if other niche Sweden related articles come my way, I'll keep you in mind!
:The one thing I feel I'm missing in Wikipedia is a way to connect with people. Writing in talk pages has a very 2000s Internet forum vibe to it ahah. I would love to have a more organic way of chatting with people. If there's some feature I missed let me know. FilipeMRGouveia (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hi again! Lol, true enough, communicating through talk pages isn't exactly instantaneous... But I don't think there are any other ways? Anyway I'm myself not very savvy. But I know what you mean about there being little opportunity for contact via Wikipedia, though in my experience some of the contacts you do make may turn out to be quite rewarding. I also just like you had some difficulty getting into Wikipedia, and I think quite a few potentially very good editors may be put off by it. But there again I think that by taking it slow and expanding your horizons bit by bit is the ticket. And asking for advice and help. Most editors are actually quite nice, though they can get prickly when different views on articles come to the fore... But overall it's a very rewarding experience, editing Wikipedia, and will just get more so the more you learn and dare. So good luck and have fun, and if you ever have any questions or thoughts, you know where to find me. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi FilipeMRGouveia. Thank you for your work on Natasha Semmynova ↗. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Nice work}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>North8000<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small>

<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The World Destubathon ↗

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon ↗. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span> 18:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

AI

Hi - are you using AI tools for your editing here? If so, please mention ↗:

The tool(s) you are using, and which versions

The prompts, features, workflow, etc. you are using

What review, if any, you are doing of the output

Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:Dear @Gnomingstuff
:Thank you for your message. I have previously detailed my workflow using AI in a reply to your post in Talk:Rapública ↗. Nonetheless, allow me to reiterate:
:I use AI tools to support me in writing text that is easily readable. Needless to say, I ensure that '''all contributions are properly referenced''' '''and sourced'''. I use the free version of ChatGPT, whichever may be the latest at date of edit.
:Here is my workflow for the tasks I sometimes use AI for:
:'''When expanding an article or making substantial edits:''' I independently look for sources to use in my articles, preferably academic research, where available, reliable news articles and historical sources. After reading them and identifying content that I wish to incorporate in a Wikipedia article, I will copy the relevant sections to the AI tool. Then I prompt it to draft a paragraph focusing on a specific topic, highlighting it should be compliant with Wikipedia guidelines, sometimes specifying more clearly what I want the output to be like. After getting the output, I verify its accuracy and either request a cleaner version or start working on the text I receive. I will then pick the elements from the generated text that are helpful and make any edits that I deem necessary due to accuracy or style. Sometimes, after I make my edits, if I’m still not fully happy with the text, I will ask the AI tool to revise the text’s readability (such as grammar and wording) and I then consider incorporating some of the suggestions.
:'''When editing existing text on Wikipedia:''' I work primarily with stub articles related to Portugal, which are sometimes translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia. As such, I often come across unreferenced text or poorly translated or worded text. In such instances, if unreferenced, I will attempt to find their original source. I will use an AI tool to highlight differences in meaning between the two texts and mistranslations. I will then manually confirm this, and where relevant make changes to the existing text. If the original text is in really poor condition, I might make more substantial revisions.
:'''Proofreading:''' prior to submitting my changes, I sometimes will ask an AI tool to check for any needed revisions. This helps me catch typos and similar things.
:That’s how I use AI as a support tool.
:'''Now I’d like to take this opportunity to ask you a few questions''':
:After our first discussion, I took some time to read the AI discussion page you shared. From my understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, these are not Wikipedia guidelines, but rather the ongoing discussion on how they could evolve regarding AI. Consequently, as long as Wikipedia guidelines are respected, there shouldn’t be an issue using AI as a tool to assist editing, correct?
:I believe we are both working towards making higher quality and correctly referenced articles, and I am very aware of AI's potential to invent plausible yet incorrect statements out of thin hair. I have now noted your link to the "disclosure" initiative in this AI project of yours and will strive to tag my edits where relevant with it. Otherwise, is there anything else you believe I should keep in mind?
:Lastly, I'd like to address you reverting O Pátio das Cantigas ↗ to the version prior to a substantial edit I made to destub it (which I have reverted back after assessing it). I have taken the time to confirm that all information that I added to it can be traced to its sources. I am also well aware that the article can be improved a great deal, by adding additional references and by expanding the academic review and interpretation of this movie, or even the current in line citations could be more specific about the page numbers for each claim. Nonetheless, are there any concerns that you have beyond "AI hallucinations", which are the cause for this revert? If so, do they concern the article as a whole, or specific sections?
:Apologies for the long message, but since this is the second time we go through this matter, I wanted to make sure that I explained myself properly and I am hoping that we can find a productive way forward :). FilipeMRGouveia (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)