User Talk: Gnomingstuff

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

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:Gnomingstuff/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 400K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}{{Talk header|search=yes|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no||}}

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, 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 page ↗s by typing four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions ↗, ask me on my talk page, or {{edit|Special:MyTalk|ask for help on your talk page|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Gnomingstuff! I'm glad that you are joining the
drive ↗! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Special:RandomInCategory/All articles lacking sources|Fix a random page lacking sources|class=mw-ui-progressive}}|style=margin:1em}}CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:38, 2 February 2024 UTC ↗ //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnomingstuff&action=purge refresh ↗{{small|via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)}}

AI edit…? What….?

“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)

:The edit not only shows signs of AI use, but the very first reference I checked contained a hallucination: {{tq|[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)
::I wrote it. I did not use AI. But I will change the wording. Luka1184 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:::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)

Undoing of edit to 'List of Gospels' page

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)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas ↗

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)

Hi, again! LLM generated WikiProject main page?

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)

: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)
::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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

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)

Have you considered taking up a mop?

<table role="presentation" style="background-color:#fcffdd; width:100%; border:3px solid #fceb92; margin:1em auto 1em auto">
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align:middle; padding:1px">90px ↗</td>
<td style="vertical-align:middle; padding:1px; text-align:center">Category:Administrators without tools ↗'''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! {{pb}}''Interested in becoming an administrator ↗? Check out some RfA advice ↗, or ask a nominator ↗ about next steps!'' </td></tr>
</table> @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)

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

Saw your AI-generated tag

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)

: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)

: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) 
::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)

Please be cautious about AI tagging

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)

: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)
::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 {{ql|G15. LLM-generated pages '''without human review'''}}, my addition of the bold. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
:::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)
::::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)
:::::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)
::::::What does the term "G15" refer to? Specifically, what process? Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::If you use twinkle to tag a page CSD:G15 the text is {{tq|G15 Unreview LLM content}}. The title of WP:G15 ↗ is '''{{tq|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)
::::::::What is "CSD" an acronym for? Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::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)
::::::::::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)
::::::::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)
:::::::::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)
::::::::::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)
::::::::::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)
:::::::::::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)
::::::::::::Very good point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Re wording

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)

:Given that the things that have been said include stuff like {{tq|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)
::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)
:::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)

Question

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)

: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 {{tq|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 {{tq|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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)

A fox for you!

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center; justify-content: center; gap: 8px; flex-wrap: wrap; border-style:solid; border-color:#f4b58a; background-color:#faf0e8; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">130x89px ↗

<div style="flex-basis: 400px; flex-grow: 1;">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 {{tls|Fox}} or {{tls|Fox2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div></div> Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs ↗) 02:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

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)

Clarifying the rewrite edit of the Fluoride page

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)

:Phrasing like {{tq|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)

Seeing Like a State ↗ 'possible LLM use' template

Hi, I noticed your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seeing_Like_a_State&diff=prev&oldid=1310617999 ↗, 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)

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

Incomplete noticeboard section

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)

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

JoGayle Howard

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)

Now redirected page

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)

: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)
::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)

Suspicious articles

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)

THE SINGING GOLD - AI Slop flag

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)

: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)
: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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

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)

RE: ZenQuest

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)

Your comments re:firings, union-busting, and the wishlist

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)

Personal attacks

Please stop with the personal attacks. I've raised your other attacks and personalization's elsewhere, but this also includes comments {{diff2|1356518956|like this}}, where you accuse me of {{tq|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)

: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)

A comment on tone

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&diff=prev&oldid=1356860341 ↗ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&diff=prev&oldid=1356695832 ↗ 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)

: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)

On Suggesting A.I. wrote ''Gyaru'' article

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)

: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)

CS1 error on 1967 ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ 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. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1967&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1357806825%7C1967%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Gnomingstuff&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:1967}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1357806825 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

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)

June 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ 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)

Badhan, Sanaag

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

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

:Please stop pinging me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::It seems you’ve forgotten to respond to the message above... Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::I have reviewed your edit history, and while you are trying to eliminate AI edits from Wikipedia and I am trying to utilize them, I believe there is no difference in our stance toward removing unreliable information from the platform. There are several issues with AI editing, but in my view, the primary one is that AI text contains many errors; currently, AI is poor at finding appropriate sources, and depending on the site, it cannot read the content of URLs. Using the stylistic quirks of AI text as a clue to find such inappropriate descriptions is a good approach. However, I do not recommend making that information public on Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing ↗ as you are doing, because it can be easily bypassed by simply having the AI read the descriptions on Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing ↗ beforehand. While you might possess a secret, ultimate method of identification not listed there, an AI could probably bypass that as an afterthought anyway. What I recommend instead is that you obtain Wikipedia:Edit filter ↗ rights. If you configure the edit filter properly, you can add edits to a list every time an edit with a specific writing pattern occurs, and since the filter can be set to invisible for anyone other than filter editors, this information cannot be exploited. Please do consider this option. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

AI usage in History of East Asia

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)

Your list

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)

OKA articles

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)
:{{tps|g}} 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)
::Thank you for the link to the discussion, which I found very informative. Ingratis (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::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)
:::Thanks for the clarifications. I should make clear that I've only seen those of Leeanah's articles on churches and monasteries, where her translations are no worse than those of many non-OKA editors working on technical subjects which they're not too familiar with (I haven't yet started on :Abbey of Saint-Jouin-de-Marnes ↗); and that the French Wikipedia originals themselves are often such that they would not be highly thought of in the English Wikipedia - too much trivial detail, often too much original research and too few references. Ingratis (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::In this case the editor in question was generating sections that straight up did not exist in the original article.
::::That being said, could this discussion be moved off my talk page? Thanks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

AI generated article

Hi, I just noticed this edit ↗ from last November. I would have appreciated a message on my talk too

Anyway, I'd like to clarify a few things. At the time, I wasn't aware that using AI to help with drafting text was not permitted here. That said, everything I added to the article was translated from the corresponding it.wiki one, of which I am the original author of a substantial portion of the content (i wrote that text based on various reliable sources, not AI slop), so fortunately there are no hallucinations; I only used AI to improve the translation, or at least this is what I believed.

I'll go through the article again and rewrite the text. Thank you for taking the time to review it. –yeagvr · ✉ 22:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:No worries, thanks for the update. Our AI policies weren't the same in November as they are now.
:Since you mentioned translating, there are special and a bit more permissive rules for AI translations, those are mentioned at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation ↗:
:When translating text from a non-English Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia mainspace, you may only use these tools when:
:- You are skilled enough in both the origin language and English to confirm the translation is accurate;
:- You have checked for, and removed, all AI hallucinations and other core content policy violations;
:- You have checked the sources in the origin language article and you are sure the translated text reflects them fairly, and each fact or claim likely to be challenged is supported by an inline citation to a reliable source; and
:- You have complied with all the usual translation processes including terms of use-compliant attribution. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Editing concerns

Hello, thanks for reaching out.

I'm writing in response to your message. English is not my native language, and when contributing to articles I take more time to use appropriate vocabulary, rather than relying on basic words. Because of this, some paragraphs may appear more formal or sophisticated, but that's simply a reflection of the effort I try to put into editing.

The sources I use come from reputable European and Slovak news outlets. Before adding information, I summarize their text in my own words. Many Slovak expressions and terms do not translate directly into English, therefore, I often have to choose the most accurate phrases available, sometimes at the cost of simplicity. This can make the text look like it was generated using artificial intelligence, when in reality it's the result of translating across online dictionaries.

If you wish to proceed with your concerns and keep the warning text box at the top of article, that is ultimately your decision. I have explained my position and the reasoning behind my writing style.

That said, I appreciate you going through Wikipedia articles. Keep up the good work! Gabriel1055 (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The Siege of Caffa

im just commenting on ur side u r correct cuz nobody cares if it was diverse or not what matters was the background not jews Muslims and turks Noam Elyada (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

:no one really minds abt thetraders and merchants in the area
:Farewell
:Siege of Caffa ↗ Noam Elyada (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

AI tags

Hello, I responded on the Horizon Call of the Mountain ↗ talk page, but since you tagged other articles, I figured a central discussion would be better, whether here, my talk page, or elsewhere. All I know is I haven't used AI to help with any part of Wikipedia, so it is a surprise to me to see these articles get tagged. -- ZooBlazer 01:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:Are you using tools such as Grammarly, Quillbot, etc.? Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
::Nope. All I have done with these articles is gather sources/moved relevant info/refs from other articles in their respective series. Then I read through the refs and just copy relevant paragraphs/sentences, usually in a word doc or my sandbox and try to cleanly combine all the info together. This has apparently resulted in some of the issues you brought up being cases of synthesizing.
::I've also been trying to incorporate info I received in the Horizon Zero Dawn ↗ FAC in terms of not using peacock terms, using "use" instead of "utilize" and avoid "noted" and its variations, while also trying to follow MOS:FOUND ↗, so I am not sure if any of that has been an issue. -- ZooBlazer 03:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ice on Fire edit

Hello, I saw you removed the revised lead I wrote for Ice on Fire ↗, claiming it was generated (or seemed like it was generated) with AI. I can assure you it was not, I despise generative AI in all its forms. If this is because it was a large edit all added to the article at once (I don't remember, it might have been), that would be because I had worked on this article in my sandbox prior to copy-and-pasting it into the main article. Thanks Elephantranges (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:Got it, thanks, on taking a second look I agree -- there are, however, some promotional tone/synthesis issues (which was what made me stumble across the page). Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::Ok, great! And please feel free to let me know what looked suspicious so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk page revert

I've just seen your edit to the page Talk:Trade Centre Group ↗. My immediate thought was "What??? ''Why the hell didn't someone do this years ago?''" It's about as gross an example of misuse of a talk page as I have ever seen, and it's absurd that it's been left in place for almost four and a half years. JBW (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:thanks - there is a truly enormous amount of stuff like this on talk pages and it sticks around forever, I lost track of the number of times I've had to request oversight of things even Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yes. I said "it's absurd that it's been left in place for almost four and a half years", but I've seen even more absurd cases of stuff being left in place for much longer. More disturbing, though, is the fact that on occasions I've seen stuff that's been left ''in articles ''for years despite being absolutely obviously nonsense. JBW (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit filter false positives

Some of your edits tagging articles for AI are triggering filter 1346 ↗. I reported this at WP:EFFPR ↗. Including "oaicitation" in the reason for the AI tag should not be triggering the AI citation filter. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:surprise, I was using AI the WHOLE TIME!
:(in all seriousness thanks for the heads up) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Apology

I don't exactly recall which sections of the Article Patsho ↗ an AI is used to improve the grammar. But what I exactly remember is the subtopic on ''organization'', that's the part where AI is used to improve the Article not knowing AI isn't allowed at all. How can I improve this Article to keep it or to bring to compliance? Should I request for full deletion of the article instead?

Also there are separate articles of different topics Under the subsection of ''organization'', which are improved using AI, please delete those write-ups.

Thanks for your help Admin ExfactoLexander (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, no need to apologize, our AI guidelines have changed several times in the past few months. The current policies are at WP:NEWLLM ↗.
:Definitely don't request deletion of the article, the village is unquestionably notable and these edits are recent. You probably have a better idea of which parts of the article were affected, so the easiest thing might be to undo whatever edits that AI tools were used for. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::Okay thanks Admin. ExfactoLexander (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::(Just to be clear I'm not an admin, I just do cleanup work.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Okay okay. I am rewriting the parts where AI is used. Please remove the AI tag if you are satisfied and the article meets your standards. ExfactoLexander (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:OS ↗

Hi there, when you spot someone disclosing a phone number or something similar on a talk page, please send that to OS. We suppress those. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:I brought this up last year ↗ and was told not to do this for older edits as this would draw attention to them. Unfortunately I am about a month and a half behind on doing talk page cleanup, so until I catch up the reversions are mostly going to be older edits. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::Ideally we'd get to things within a month, but just over a month is still in the "do OS" window. ''Really'' old stuff, yeah, there's no use. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Another one: if someone makes it clear that they're <16, you can send that stuff in to the list as well. And thanks! In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

AI Reverts

Please double check your reverts when you are reverting AI crap. 100% appreciate the removal of the AI bs, but just make sure you aren't reverting good edits with the bad. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 19:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:Apologies if I missed something, did you have a specific article in mind? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::It happens! No worries. Special:Diff/1360018148/1360021245 ↗ was the latest. There were a couple others. Nothing major tho. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 19:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::This continues to happen. You really need to be more careful. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 15:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I genuinely do not know what is producing these, sorry. Every time I revert, I compare every single change that occurred after the edit in question, and then transfer over every single change -- unless that change was made to the AI text, because there's no way to restore cosmetic edits to text that I am removing. The other reason I do not transfer edits over is if they are unverifiable information, probably added in the AI text. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Like what do I have to do to get you (and everyone fucking else) to believe me here, screen record myself? Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Lets settle down... All you need to do is preview your edits.... You will see big red error messages showing the bad parameters... '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 15:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Uh... I haven't seen any of those recently. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Special:Permalink/1360762905 ↗. If you preview that edit, you don't see any errors? '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::No, I just get a note that all edits must follow BLP. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::But please for the love of god if it's just one parameter, please just fix it, don't revert the whole thing and restore the AI text. I am trying to get through a list of six fucking thousand articles here, and since I have been deleting them from the list as I go, I will not be able to find it again. I understand that it creates extra work, but I am also trying to get through extra work created for me.
::::::::And, like, also, I apologize, but while it's important to standardize infobox parameters, it is in the grand scheme of things not as large of a policy and content issue as AI-generated text, and not reader facing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, I see the issue. Here is the exact thing I am seeing:
:::::::::https://imgur.com/a/yQ7UfL5
:::::::::In this case, since the nationality infobox parameter was added after the AI edits, and it did not seem unverified by the pre-AI sources, I restored it, so as to not overwrite other people's work. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::You are only looking at the diffs and not WP:PREVIEW ↗ as I have told you multiple times. At this point I have fixed no fewer than 15 of your reverts that you are doing without checking. I am done fixing your edits. Moving forward I will simply revert them when they break the page. If you cannot figure out how to preview your work, that is on you. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 15:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Awesome. Yet another person obstructing AI cleanup. Amazing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::This really isn't that hard. Freaking preview your edits and stop breaking things. I'm done feeding you ↗. Stop playing the victim and actually check the edits you are making. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 15:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::It also isn't that hard to fix one (1) (uno) infobox parameter.
::::::::::::What you are saying is that it is OK to keep AI-generated content around. This is against guidelines. It is certainly more against guidelines than keeping a deprecated infobox parameter around. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::@Zackmann08, reverting a large change because of one broken infobox parameter is disruptive ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::When that same issue has been caused by the same user over and over again, I will simply revert rather than continuing to fix their broken work. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 18:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Like I said before, this is effectively re-adding AI-generated content to an article, which is a violation of WP:NOLLM ↗. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Which is still disruptive ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|Gnomingstuff}} let me try to walk back and diffuse this situation. A couple of points...
:::::::::::I'm sorry this conversation turned so hostile (for lack of a better word). That was not my intent. Hoping we can start fresh.
:::::::::::I 100% appreciate your AI/LLM reverts. Let me be clear on that point. I HATE LLM content on here and am also a fan of getting it out. So please don't misunderstand my actions as somehow being pro LLM. That is not the case. NOLLM is more a passion project for you than it is for me, but I am certainly no fan of it.
:::::::::::My passion project is tracking unknown parameters as these are often sources of vandalism. Now obviously your edits are NOT vandalism, not saying they are. But when unknown parameters are introduced accidentally, it gets in the way of tracking intentional vandalism. Now accidents happen. I myself have introduced unknown parameters and failed to preview. NO ONE is faultless.
:::::::::::Let me say what I should have said better from the get go, when you are doing your AI reverts, rather than '''just''' reverting or clicking "restore this version" please also check that the version you are restoring doesn't contain bad code. Some of these cases are minor (restoring a non-working parameter like {{para|nationality}}) but in some cases you are '''accidentally''' restoring a parameter that no longer works and therefore removes information from the page. For example if you restore to a version using {{para|birthdate}} instead of {{para|birth_date}}, that persons birthday, which was working before, is now blanked from the page. This a minor example, but hopefully you understand. So, all I am asking, is please check your restores with WP:PREVIEW ↗. If you have introduced unknown parameters, you will get a preview warning and it can easily be fixed right away.
:::::::::::Moving forward, if one slips through, I will do my best not to just revert your entire edit. I only do this for repeat offenders or when the edit is exclusively unknown parameter addition. Given this chat, '''as long as I recognize your username when I review the diff''', I will not just knee-jerk revert your edits. Forgive me in advance if I accidentally do and I will forgive you for accidentally letting an unknown parameter slip through.
:::::::::::Keep up the great work fighting AI/LLM. If I can every help with that fight, let me know. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 19:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Aren't you using AWB or something to do this somewhat automatically? Can't you just run that again, instead of reinstating LLM crap that someone has put in the time and effort to find and revert? You don't always look at the editor (and thus preview) when you are reverting stuff like this. For example I do a lot of it through Twinkle and other userscripts, only needing to open the editor (and preview) when I have to do manual surgery to remove LLM crap that can't be easily reverted anymore. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I really would prefer this discussion take place somewhere else, I don't have anything more to contribute to it Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Would like it noted that I came here to try to diffuse the situation and move forward. If you are not interested in that, then fine. But I came here in good faith to try to move forward as well as to compliment you on your good work. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 20:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I understand that, I just am trying to move forward with other work myself Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Sounds good. Keep doing your thing. If I can help, let me know. If anyone ELSE has questions, they are free to ping me directly in a separate discussion. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 20:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

AI Flagging

You recently flagged AI on a page I created, WIFEY ↗. The article was written and researched by me, I did however have AI check my grammar prior to posting. Also, the page has been edit by several people since I created this page some months back (including stuff by me I did not check with AI). — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by SanDiegoDan (talk • contribs ↗) 12:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
:Gibbula delgadensis ↗
::added a link pointing to Family (biology) ↗
:Oliveragemmula kieneri ↗
::added a link pointing to Family (biology) ↗

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks, you made me laugh

''my dog started whistling'' almost made me choke on my coffee. that's great, I'm stealing it. Fixinathing (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Humble request

Hi! May I please remove the AI-detection marker you added? Do I have the permission to proceed? Article: Patsho ↗ ExfactoLexander (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:Responding on the talk page for the article, please put article-related comments there Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for your response. The article is on Patsho ↗ village. ExfactoLexander (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::Okay. I will put up there. ExfactoLexander (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi - there's no need to keep replying on my talk page for this as this is about the article, as it spams me with pings Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Specific feedback only, please

Please do NOT send me further messages unless you have a concrete, specific issue with my edits.

If you believe there is a factual error, a problem with my sources, or a policy violation, please point out the exact passage or citation you are referring to so we can discuss it constructively. Generic assumptions or vague impressions about how my text was written are NOT helpful. Galilean-moons (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:Are you using AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::That question is not relevant to Wikipedia's editorial standards, and the fact that you're asking it instead of responding to the argument I previously made tells me everything. Whether or not any tool was used in producing an edit has no bearing on whether that edit contains accurate information supported by reliable sources. Mine does. '''Your messages have not identified a single factual error, a single unsourced claim, or a single failure to meet editorial standards. Until you do, there is nothing here to address.''' Galilean-moons (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::WP:NOLLM ↗. Read it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

AI issue

Hi I am StillLearningEditing. You left a message on my talk page about me using ai on my recent edit. My recent edits should be on three different articles two of which are about TV series. On those two article, I used information from Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu after translating them in English. For translation, I used google translate. And changed it a bit in the neutral tone Wikipedia uses by myself. I didn't use any form of ai. But I have used the entire info on those articles. And I made some mistakes there. But other editors corrected it. Again I didn't use any ai for this. Is it because I wrote all the things I translated in the articles? Hope you can reach out to me about this again. Thank you. StillLearningEditing (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:They did the same to me despite the fact that I am unquestionably against AI use. All of my sources that I used reflect this and are factual as far as I am aware (they are academic and peer-reviewed). I would also like some answers. ADrews05 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I already responded to you. Please do not spam my talk page about something I already addressed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I find that hard to believe given edits like Special:Diff/1316486469 ↗, which are textbook AI output. Did you use tools like DeepL or Grammarly? Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I don't care if you find it hard to believe but I didn't use any ai. https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%9B%BD%E8%89%B2%E8%8A%B3%E5%8D%8E/62083421?fromModule=lemma_inlink#5
::I don't know what DeepL is. I have seen ads of grammarly but never used it. I only used google translate. StillLearningEditing (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

MfD on Wikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI use ↗

Im sorry about that move and would have voted oppose. I think its unlikely the move would survive like this and agree it was baffling.

but doing an MfD is fairly WP:POINTY ↗ on a very useful essay you helped create. I hope you forgive this silliness and withdraw the mfd. as is, its unlikely to succeed anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs ↗) 13:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:That wasn't my intention, I genuinely do not want it around anymore, it is part of a larger disillusionment Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hi Gnomingstuff, I'd like to echo the idea I saw elsewhere that if you are feeling disillusioned a break may help. Even just slowing down on work that feels like a chore can make a difference. If your concern is that the AI cleanup backlog will grow in your absence, that should not be a significant factor in your decision making. Backlogs aren't any one editor's responsibility, and if it grows it grows. I've taken similar breaks before, sometimes pivoting to a more enjoyable activity onwiki (I have a few topics I'd enjoy writing about if I need a break hanging around in my back pocket), sometimes even finding things to do offwiki. I haven't !voted on the MfD and give strong consideration to your view as the original and main author, but it's a decent piece of work and I think it would be a shame to lose it. CMD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

How can i not make my article look ai generated

hi its wolfknightmaheeb,my first and only article so far has been flagged for being AI generated which i can assure was written completely by me. I had taken help from chatgpt to rephrase a few sentences here and there but i couldve changed that if i was notified and how can images that i specifically took from his seminars be AI generated why did those images get reverted too. Anyway i dont expect that article to be given back to me I'll write it all over again but do you have any suggestions on how can i not make it seem AI generated? I even ran zerogpt on my paragraphs before uploading them. Oh and also may i add that this is a very niche topic that doesnt have much information online so most of my information is based on my live interactions with him. If that means that this shouldnt be written on Wikipedia please tell me that too I'll just not go Through all that work just for it to get deleted again Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{tq|I had taken help from chatgpt to rephrase a few sentences here and there}}
:This is not allowed on Wikipedia ↗. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::but the rest was written by me can you atleast revert the infobox and the headings, thanks Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::You're the one who knows what parts of it used ChatGPT, so you are in a better position to do that than me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::um Alright thanks i guess Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry, the thing though is that I am not a mind reader, and I do not know what parts of the article you used ChatGPT for. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::yes i understand im sorry if it came as though i was being aggressive, i assume the fact that im a non native contributed to my writing looking like AI :/ Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::ChatGPT was what made the writing look like AI, because that's what ChatGPT does.
:::::One thing I do want to mention is that there are Wikipedias in lots of different languages ↗, and a lot of them would really appreciate more people helping out. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::yeah i wanted to contribute to the wiki page on this thats in my native language thanks for the reminder, appreciate the effort :) Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

{| class="barnstar" style="border:1px solid gray; background:#fdffe7;"
|-
|rowspan="2" style="padding-right:5px;" | 100px ↗

|style="font-size:1.65em; padding:0; height: 1.1em;" | The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
|-
|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for working so hard to keep AI off Wikipedia. I too have run across editors who think as long as they are "good" at using AI, it's ok. It is ''never'' ok. Please don't get discouraged. Take a break if needed, but please keep up the excellent work. Masterhatch (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

Information technology management

Hi

I don't understand why my content was removed based on the assumption that it was LLM-generated on Information technology management ↗.
This article is the result of approximately one week of intensive research and writing. I personally compiled information from reliable academic sources, including peer-reviewed journals, university publications, and official standards documents (ISO, ISACA, etc.). All sources are properly cited in the article. I have extensively used internal Wikipedia links (wikification) to connect the article to other relevant pages, which demonstrates familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

In fact, the content was added between May 18 and May 26 (please see the article's history). This clearly shows that the content was not generated by an LLM, as it was built upon over several days through multiple edits

I understand that Wikipedia has strict policies against LLM ↗-generated content, and I support those policies. I request that you re-evaluate my content based sources, and academic quality, rather than assuming it was LLM-generated simply because it is comprehensive and well-structured.

Additionally, I have also written the following related articles:

Bachelor of Information technology management ↗

Master of Science in Information Technology Management ↗

PhD in Information Technology Management ↗

I ask you to reconsider the removal and restore the article, or at least point out specific sections that you believe require revision so I can address them directly.

I created a template ↗ for this article and for all related topics in Information Technology Management. Unfortunately, you have also deleted that from the article.

Furthermore, some of the content was based on references and sources that are already used in other Wikipedia articles, such as the Information Systems ↗, IT infrastructure ↗, Information security ↗ articles and other related articles. These were also deleted by you based on the same incorrect assumption that they were LLM-generated, despite being properly sourced from established Wikipedia contentBalash-Vologases (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:Are you using tools such as Grammarly, DeepL, Quillbot, etc? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::No, I do not use any of these tools. I write all content manually and rely on my academic background and expertise in Information Technology Management. Any grammar or style improvements are done by me personally.
::May I ask why you are asking this question? Is there something specific in my writing that has led you to believe I am using such tools?
::Which part of the content I added gave you this impression? Information Technology Management is widely taught in universities, and I improved parts of the article using those academic resources. Many universities have dedicated pages and articles on this subject. Balash-Vologases (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Because the text reads exactly like all of the rest of the thousands of AI-generated edits we get. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I understand your concern, I would point out that many legitimate academic texts especially in fields like Information Technology Management, naturally share similar characteristics with LLM-generated content. I used some content from the IT infrastructure ↗ and Information system article for parts of my contribution.
::::Also the academic and university publishers like<<ref>{{cite web |title=Information Technology Management (MA) |url=https://www.webster.edu/catalog/current/graduate-catalog/degrees/information-technology-management-ma.pdf |publisher=Webster University ↗}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=MASTER IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT|url=https://www.business.unimas.my/images/2023/LandingPageV2/FCSIT/MITM/MITM.pdf |publisher=Universiti Malaysia Sarawak ↗}}</ref>'<ref>{{cite web |title=MSITM program COMPLIANT |url=https://www.oakland.edu/Assets/Oakland/business/files-and-documents/MSITMFlier/MSITM%20program%20COMPLIANT.pdf |publisher=Oakland University ↗}}</ref>
::::I also want to point out that I cannot simply use the exact same text from those sources, as that would constitute a copyright violatio ↗n. I had to carefully read each source, extract the relevant information, and then rewrite it in my own words while maintaining academic accuracy and proper citations. This entire process took more than 10 days of my time, and there was simply no other way I could have completed this work. Balash-Vologases (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

Notification of ANI discussion

Hello Gnomingstuff,

I am writing to inform you that I have started a discussion regarding the removal of content in the article Information technology management ↗ and the related template, which you reverted based on the assumption that the content was LLM-generated.

The discussion is taking place at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) here ↗. Balash-Vologases (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

You're doing great work

Don't let the bastards grind you down ↗, GS. I know you're prone to this kind of disillusionment when people push back against your cleanup efforts; but you are one of our most knowledgable and prolific AI cleaners. Make no mistake that the encyclopedia would be a much worse place were it not for your efforts. There will always be people who'll complain and kick up a fuss when you challenge their content, but you mustn't let it cause you to feel that the whole mission of AI cleanup is pointless. We've made great strides in strengthening our AI policies and guidelines, in no small part because of your own effort. Take a break and stop doing AI cleanup if you need to, just don't let yourself buckle under the pressure. Athanelar (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:I was going to drop a barnstar too, but since you've already got a good supply for the short term, I will just second everything that Athanelar says here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hello,

I saw the list of warnings on your user page, but I thought I'd interrupt your tasks to give a barnstar for all the work you do. I've seen you fix things on my watchlist many times, and believe you've cleaned up after me on more than one occasion. I wanted to let you know it isn't unnoticed or unappreciated. Wish we had an army of WikiGnome ↗s like you defending the Wiki. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

Madalena do Mar

{{cait}}
Please note that approximately 95% of articles published over the last two years have been generated with the assistance of AI. This does not pose any issue, provided that the information is accurate, maintains an objective tone, and is supported by relevant references—as is the case with this article.
Could you please specify exactly which references or sections of the article you find inaccurate? Furthermore, it has been noted that your disruptive and biased activity is not limited to Portuguese articles but extends to others as well. If you are unable to maintain neutrality and professionalism, it would be best to refrain from editing Wikipedia articles." ~2026-36818-07 ↗ (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
{{caib}}
:article is correct but this guy have some personal problem Calhetan77 (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:{{tq|approximately 95% of articles published over the last two years have been generated with the assistance of AI.}} blatantly false. {{tq|This does not pose any issue, provided that the information is accurate, maintains an objective tone, and is supported by relevant references}} have you read WP:NOLLM ↗?
:In conclusion, fuck off ↗. Fermiboson (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::not sure this is called for, even though the comment is clearly AI (many indicators, but for one, they didn't bother to remove the quotation mark at the end) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Cathy Caruth ↗

You slapped an "AI-generated" tag on the entire article and you had no business doing that. No specific passages, diffs, or examples were ever pointed to. Just a blanket accusation with zero evidence. That kind of move directly violates WP:AGF ↗ and WP:ASPERSIONS ↗. You don't get to cast aspersions about an article being machine-written without actually showing where the problems are. If something genuinely looks off, raise it with specific diffs instead of tagging the whole page. Everything is meticulously sourced with supporting quotations in the notes section.

Well, did you use AI or not? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:Your question assumes bad faith. See WP:AGF ↗ as noted above. Enakpat18 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::No, it doesn't. I am asking you a question. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The question assumes bad faith in violation of WP:AGF ↗ as noted above. Therefore, I won't respond. Enakpat18 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Talkpage notice

Hey there. Responding to your note on my talkpage re LLM use, and the tags on the articles. While I agree that I did use it smoothen out the wording for easy reading (within WP:LLM ↗ limits), I disagree with the tags. The text/facts were put together by me, and carefully reviewed after rewording, and so are the references. You will notice that in some of the articles tagged, even the photos are by myself, as I make effort to physically visit the subjects I write about. I work in the energy/infrastructure industry of Sri Lanka, so the articles I write are created with care. If the single-edit article creation is what flagged this, you can see that most of the articles I created since well over a decade are like this (well before commercial AI existed), because I have the articles saved in .txt drafts on my PC until I am happy to publish. Hope this clarifies? May I ask you to remove tags on this ↗ and this ↗? Rehman 04:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{tq|smoothen out the wording for easy reading (within WP:LLM limits)}}
:If I or anyone else can tell that AI was used, it isn't within those limits. LLM use is permitted only for basic copyediting, i.e., fixing typos or punctuation. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

::Thanks for the speedy reply. Your tags on the live articles warn of "hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references." All of it obviously not applicable here. WP:LLM clearly states "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits ↗ to their own writing" (also note the link). What am I missing here? Rehman 04:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:::"Smoothing out wording" is not basic copyediting. Basic copyediting refers to things like turning "Teh dog is brown" to "The dog is brown" or "The dog are brown" to "The dog is brown" or structural changes to make it readable. It's not for changing "The dog is brown" to "According to contemporary reports in media, the dog could be characterized as brown."
:::As for the template, it's a standard template, and the description is simply there to inform of some of the reasons ''why'' LLM usage has been almost entirely banned by the English Wikipedia community outside of two ''very'' limited exceptions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

::::Thanks for replying on Gnomingstuff's behalf. I hear you, and wont argue against your point, as you probably clearly have more experience in the area. My problem is however, what ''is'' the problem ''here'', when the text ''is'' fully human vetted and crossed checked? I was going to add/ask if "''According to contemporary reports in media, the dog could be characterized as brown''" is a bad thing, but then I do agree that it ''is'' a bad thing, though it is not the case with the ''articles in question''. I want to remove the tags, be it standard or not, because it is misleading and does not apply to these pages, but I'd like to hear from the OP first. Rehman 14:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::The problem is that it is not allowed on Wikipedia ↗. Following guidelines is not optional. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

::::::Alright, agreed (and agreed ↗). This area is new to me and we learn something new everyday. For the pages already written, can I remove the tags? Rest assured a lot of effort was put into those, and they are 100% human checked. As I mentioned in the other link, I have been writing for nearly 2 decades here on wiki, and you can be assured nothing malicious is intended here. I don't think there is any bloated wordings, but happy to remove if you spot any. Rehman 14:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marutswa Forest ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bushbuck ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate all you do

{| class="barnstar" style="border:1px solid gray; background:#fdffe7;"
|-
|rowspan="2" style="padding-right:5px;" | 100px ↗

|style="font-size:1.65em; padding:0; height: 1.1em;" | The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
|-
|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For amazing perseverance in a very tough job. M kuhner (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
|}
:I want to add my thanks. Defending against the avalanche of AI slop on Wikipedia is something I rarely have the energy to do these days, so I'm very glad to see others willing to enter the fray - and endure all the crap they get as a result. ~2026-37183-96 ↗ (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Geetha Johri ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Geetha Johri ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A generic name ↗ error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geetha_Johri&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1361976837%7CGeetha%20Johri%5D%5D Ask for help]). Below are the references causing this error:

* {{cite web |author1=NDTV Correspondent |date=30 July 2010 |title=Who is Geeta Johri? |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/who-is-geeta-johri-425610 |website=NDTV ↗}}

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Gnomingstuff&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Geetha Johri}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1361976837 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:This was in the previous version of the text; I didn't add it. I am doing AI cleanup, not babysitting the refs of god only knows who from god only knows when. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Hello @Gnomingstuff Thanks for your automatically generated generic message about AI in my text. Have you thought of attaching {{User bot owner}} to your messages? It might prevent you from receiving irritated replies? Cheers Derek J Moore (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:I am not a fan of AI. But I do think that Wikipedia is feeding LLM's. See https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/07/15/introducing-wikivault-a-new-chapter-in-wikipedia-contributions-with-ai/ Derek J Moore (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::Have you thought about not producing those irritated replies yourself? Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Why compain about the replies when somone offers a solution in good faith? dont complain about irritated replies when you refuse to action comments given about them. I received one of your, what I now recognise as, automatically generated messages and I would not have realised it was one if I had not looked through your talk page. If you don't want arguments and "irritated replies" why not try and make your actions less irritating instead of projecting that annoyance back onto other editors? Fin.Seaman (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Because I do not run a bot -- every single fucking one of these is manual, and I have been slogging away at this for more than two months now -- so the "solution" is not actually a solution and is instead yet another gripe left at my doorstep. If you don't like my having to make a talk page section for every AI-generated tag, then go complain at the people who told me to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Then don't respond so passive-aggresivly to comments like you did to Derek's. Why didn't you just inform him they were manual instead of obnoxiously telling him not to produce an irritated reply? Then people like me wouldn't be confused when they try to look into why they were accused of using AI and people like Derek don't falsley accuse ''you'' of using a bot. Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Because their comment is very clearly snarky retaliation ↗ for my doing the utterly abhorrent deed of flagging their AI-generated content as AI-generated. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::So you respond with more snarky retaliation? All that does is annoy people more. I came here only to ask about my own, allbeit more brief, message stating a similar thing, and this response only showed you in a negative light despite the good stuff you evidently do. I completly despise AI and it's usage by people who attempt to claim it as their own, but your response achieved nothing to clear up what was happening. Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I fully understand Gnomingstuff's frustration. LLM use has drastically increased recently. And users of LLMs get highly offended when accused of it. Then they try to justify the use of LLMs with remarks like, but it is sourced! Show me exactly which phrase is wrong! I only use it to copy edit! Show me how to make it look less like LLM! I don't know how to edit without LLM (I saw that excuse for the 1st time today)! Users don't seem to get ''why'' it is wrong. I'll excuse Gnomingstuff's snarkiness. Masterhatch (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Iran News Wire

Hi Gnomingstuff, I've revised the article since the AI tag was added and addressed a number of the concerns that were raised. For translation, I used Google Translate. The article itself was written by me. When you get a chance, could you please take another look? If you feel the tag is no longer needed, I'd appreciate its removal. Thanks for your time. ColTip (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

AI use

Thank you for your comment on my talk page and comments on the respective pages of Resettlement Camps. Please note that if AI was used to review grammar, the text and sources were drafted by myself, and posted from my files in one batch. Some text was repeated as the operation of Resettlement Camps was primary done by the same administration. If there are specific concerns, please let me know so that they can be fixed. Scotchorama (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:What do you mean by "if" here?
:At any rate please review our AI guidelines ↗. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::A team worked for a few weeks preparing the articles to be posted. We posted them at the same time in order to ensure there were no broken links. As mentioned, if there are specific concerns regarding the sources or references, please let me know, as we had drafted the articles using the sources. Thank you. Scotchorama (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::@Scotchorama, What do you mean a team wrote these articles? Eddie891 '' Talk Work ↗'' 10:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I mean that we created a group including historians to add articles to Wikipedia as the topic of resettlement camps was not mentioned at all. We drafted articles and I posted them the same day, some using AI translation as we are not all native speakers. We were wrong. Now we request them to be deleted as Wikipedia is not the right forum for this information. Scotchorama (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::: An error that I don't think a human could reasonably generate is, for example, found on Resettlement camp (Umsiedlungslager) ↗. The page cites {{xt|"Schelklingen History and the Umsiedlungslager ↗". ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved 9 June 2026.}} many times. Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that cited wikipedia article does not mention the word "Umsiedlungslager" at all! How can that have happened? Eddie891 '' Talk Work ↗'' 10:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::The article states: "During World War II the town was a place of internment for POWs from Poland. In 1941 the St.-Konradihaus was requisitioned by the government and until 1945 was used as a resettlement camp (Umsiedlungslager (SS-Lager)) in order to reeducate people from Alsace." We had been working on a separate Schelklingen Lager camp article but ended up not adding one as we were working on text to update the overall Schelklingen page. Thank you. Scotchorama (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I thank you all for your comments. All articles are being requested to be speedy deleted. Scotchorama (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valentin Clastrier ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michel Godard ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

On Reversion of all recent edits on Nando, Nigeria

Hi, I got your message on the suspected posting of AI generated content. Please I'd like to know which parts of the work (or of the recent edits) were flagged. I can assure you that I really did put in the work in researching, citing/referencing, and linking the necessary parts of that document. I may only be a research enthusiast at present but I find it a bit demoralising that my month long work was all but trashed and termed AI generated content. I don't doubt that there's a standard process by which these reviews are done but I feel the resolution was a bit extreme considering the effort put into the work. As I stated in my reply to your message, AI was mostly used in paraphrasing and editing, and was never the core of the research. All links and citations used are valid (I presumed they were at least checked) and no controversial statement was stated as fact (as far as I could tell). I would like to request a detailed review of the reverted updates and what parts were flagged as AI-generated. Dr Streps (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:Using AI for "paraphrasing" is not allowed on Wikipedia ↗. Your personal feelings do not exempt you from Wikipedia's guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Corrected flagged issues

Thank you for your contribution.

On the maintenance tag: I’ve worked through the specific issues in the tag rationale. The infobox image placeholder is removed.

Evaluative statements that were in the article’s voice are now attributed to the cited authors eg the “pioneer of the movement of police reforms” characterisation to Fasihuddin, and the “only officer” distinction to the obituary.

Duplicate citations were consolidated and a malformed journal citation corrected. Promotional and redundant phrasing has been trimmed.

I’ve left the tag in place for your review rather than removing it myself. Happy to make further changes.
Thanks Truealpha (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Message on my page regarding AI

Hello Gnomingstuff. I'e already spoken to you a bit elsewhere on here, but I would regardless like to enquire about the AI accusation you put on my page. I would like to know which article(s) that I wrote or edited made you think I used AI or LLMs in the writing process. I have not used any AI for anything I have done in wikepedia. Thanks Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:In this case it was genuinely just a question -- one of your articles came up in one of the search backlogs I have, and I wasn't sure on it. (If I was then I would have flagged it.) Thanks for the clarification. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reminder about an article

Hello, sorry to bother again. Please read the message I left here on June 11th, where I explained that I didn't use AI for writing this article ↗. Gabriel1055 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Alternatives assessment ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Alternatives assessment ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A generic name ↗ error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternatives_assessment&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1362561927%7CAlternatives%20assessment%5D%5D Ask for help]). Below are the references causing this error:

* {{Citation |author=Business-NGO Working Group for Safer Chemicals and Sustainable Materials (BizNGO) |title=BizNGO chemical alternatives assessment protocol |date=2011-11-30 |url=http://www.bizngo.org/alternatives-assessment/chemical-alternatives-assessment-protocol}}

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Gnomingstuff&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Alternatives assessment}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1362561927 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think it would be a good idea to add {{tlx|ppor|no}} (which shows as {{tq|{{ppor|no}}}}) or something similar to your signature so that people know not to ping you on reply. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I appreciate all the work you've done in the AI-editing space. Without your efforts we'd be in an objectively worse space with regard to trust in our content, and our ability to maintain it. ⇒SWATJester ↗ Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
|}

Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre

Hello,

I have written myself, alone, using documentation, articles books, mainly in Romanian French and English. Absolutely no AI has been used for this article which, by the way, is the translation of the French version. I wrote The French, Romanian and English version. I have also use a source (in RO) that has not even been even published on internet. I can send it to you should you wish. It is an anniversary book, a paper version of the theater published in 2010.

I am used to write long and detailed articles in three languages, which is perhaps why you had the perception that an AI wrote it?...
However, you cannot conclude that an AI is behind the scene, just because an article is rich and detailed.
This is not enough to flag this article on which I spent weeks of hard work.
See for instance the Socolescu's architects pages or the French and Romanian page about the Anti-communist resistance.
I specialized on Romanian related subjects. See my user page. Have a look for instance to :

Toma T._Socolescu ↗

Toma N._Socolescu ↗

:fr:Résistance anticommuniste roumaine ↗

I find extraordinary that now we now have to justify that we are not an AI...
It seems that when you are able to write a comprehensible and very detailed article, you are now suspected to have used an AI !!!
I am 57 years old and I belong the a generation that is proud to be able to write long and rich articles.
I am sorry to be curious, a great reader, and educated.

The only tools I used for to help me for a good translation is ChatGpt, which is very efficient as translator.
The original text is the French version :fr:Théâtre national d'opérette et de comédie musicale Ion Dacian ↗.
I supposed it is not forbidden to use an AI for translation. It is much better that Deepl or Google translate, or any other one.

Regards Albacore60 (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{tps}} Hi @Albacore60, it is okay to use AI for translations, but you must follow WP:LLMTRANSLATE ↗ and make sure the content is supported by the sources, because even when LLMs are only told to translate something they will often hallucinate ↗ and make something up. There are also other concerns like WP:TONE ↗. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 16:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::There is no "hallucination" in this text. I have translated piece by piece slowly and when AI did the job I doubled checked the quality of the translation after each piece of translation.
::I was not aware of this other new rule (there are so many on Wikipedia that its has become nearly impossible to respect all of them). I believe that if Wikipedia wants to control and review all AI translated pages, this will soon be out of reach...
::I have read carefully the WP:LLMTRANSLATE ↗ and I have respected all points. I do consider myself good enough in English to be able to verify all the translation.
::The style reflects the style in French version.
::I changed the flag in order to reflect the reality and added: Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation ↗.
::However, the translation is in deed very good. No extra or invented information has been added during each translation actions. This text was translated in short passages and the result double checked by myself. Regarding the tone, I let other participants to modify when it might be needed. I am not a fan of flat and unremarkable articles :)
::People who read this encyclopedia should have a minimum of pleasure doing so, bland articles do not help.
::Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Ploiesti

Hello. I’ve read your message and took note of your edit on the Ploiesti page. As I mentioned in the rollback, the content of the page was there before I used the LLM for rephrasing, spelling, and punctuation. I have verified what AI has generated before adding it to the page and it took me more than an hour. Hence, I do not agree that my edits should be removed.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs ↗) 02:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{tq|I have verified what AI has generated}}
:Not allowed. ↗ Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Query

Apologies for bothering you with this, since it's not AI-cleanup related so much as "trying to find a source for an article" related but I just wanted to double check: this article https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-026-14378-5 ↗ (especially the "Description of the study area") is making my AI-spidey senses go on alert. Do I need to recalibrate or does it feel LLM-like? (And, hey, the good news is, if you answer "yes", there's no arguing or tagging required?) GreenLipstickLesbian💌 ↗🧸 ↗ 00:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:No need to apologize! Definitely looks like it, dates check out (manuscript received 2024, the 2024 AI stuff shows up). Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks so much!
::(Now, please excuse my gentle sobbing as I go and find other sources about this hospital lol) GreenLipstickLesbian💌 ↗🧸 ↗ 01:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Query-reverted article

Hello Gnomingstuff,
Thank you for your message but I would disagree with you that article was AI generated as it was reviewed by professors and only was used in Grammarly as a grammar checking tool which probably is the reason that is flagged as LLM because it uses AI filters.
secondly, the information in the updated version of the article was reviewed well with the sources too and any potential mistake was unintentional. Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Grammarly is an AI tool, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia ↗. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Could you recommend what is the best way to solve that then? as I did use grammarly as I wasn't happy with own framing and grammar check? but aside from that all the strucutre and main sources are mine. Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::The best way to solve that is to not use Grammarly, or any other AI-based tools. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I support that and won't be using it, currently what is the right call for that article? Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::To rewrite it without AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Okay I will rewrite it without grammarly, Thank you. Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Chamundi Hills

Hi Gnomingstuff, thanks for the review. It took me really long to cite and read everything (over a week). Hence, I am reaching out to you. I did use to refine few sentences using LLMs as I was not happy with my own framing and for formatting citation templates. The following were my main sources which I went through manually to look articles published in the past 20 years.

Local bird viewing community which publishes the numbers and sightings periodically https://www.mysorenature.org/inside-mysore/chamundi

Local news paper which publishes the events happening around the area https://starofmysore.com/birds-butterflies-of-chamundi-hill/

Numbers are quoted directly from Research https://indianbirds.in/pdfs/IB3.3_MisraETAL_ChamundiHills.pdf I had to cross check the % from other publications (like x% of bird species of India) which are also cited.

National level news paper https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Chamundi%20Hills&gsc.sort= (And few from news minute)

Cite internal wiki pages with the species pages with respect to the species called in local english (mentioned in the news papers)

I believe you are not against using LLMs for finding potential sources, as long as I have actually read the sources and make sure they actually verify whatever text I am using them for. Please do consider reading few sentences from the article and look at cited articles (You reverted '''30 cited articles''' links too). All of them are inline, sometimes even next to the word like the google groups link where they found a chameleon on the street.

My end goal is to put this content to the https://w.wiki/S7mW It would be nice to have the facts both in English and Kannada which are stubs as of today. Gshguru (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{tq|I did use to refine few sentences using LLMs}}
:Which is not allowed. ↗ Please do consider "reading few sentences" of Wikipedia's guidelines if you want to contribute to Wikipedia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Which clearly states:
::# Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits ↗ to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what is asked of them and can change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited ↗. Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
::Gshguru (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::If I or anyone else can tell that you used AI for your edits, it isn't "basic copyediting." Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)