User Talk: Gurkubondinn

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

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive = User talk:Gurkubondinn/Archives/%(year)d
| algo = old(30d)
| minthreadsleft = 3
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
}}
{{/Header}}
{{clear}}

Wait a minute, is that Icelandic..?

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2087997571}}
I'm guessing your username might not mean the cucumber farmer. If you haven't seen this video ↗ you might enjoy it. I remember watching ''Hrafninn flýgur'' in school in the 80:s, we didn't stop saying tungur knivur and other pseudo-Icelandic for weeks. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

:It actually does mean "the cucumber farmer", but don't ask me why I picked that name 16 years ago because I can't remember why I thought that sounded so clever. :) Thanks for the link, because I remember something from the 90s about prank calls, people named Storm, and "Hej, är det storm?". I've actually only seen {{ill|Hrafninn flýgur|sv||is|display=yes}} once (but heard the psuedo-Icelandic jokes many times, even in Icelandic) -- with Sólstafir ↗ performing a soundtrack live with the movie in the background. There's one decent recording on YouTube ↗, but the one I was was a year or two before. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

All elected MLAs are eligible for pages

Hi --Gurkubondinn,
Moving it here. Sorry posted on the wrong talk page earlier.

Thanks for reviewing the pages for newly-elected MLAs. We are small of group of active editors doing election work and pages for MLAs as part of WikiProject Indian politics and new editors are welcome as the work is huge. Usually, we do this for every election. I noticed that you moved many of the article by Raydata (talk) to drafts. I kindly request you to wait for a few days, as many of us are reviewing the new articles and editing/expanding as per proper format. As you know hundreds of MLA articles are created in the last four days and it will take time to add proper refs. There are a huge number of citations available for these articles, all reputed and secondary, even if we discard OneIndia. Hope you agree this good faith request... just requesting as we do not want to discourage any new participants for project work, which is becoming rare now a days. Thanks and happy editing! Davidindia (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

:Many of those articles are created minutes apart, and they are a part of a rapid article creation spree. That is much faster than anyone can type, or read the sources that they are citing. In fact, many of them cite sources that do not exist or return ''404 not found''. MLA individuals may be notable by default, but WP:RS ↗ are still needed and should demonstrate WP:SIGCOV ↗. I am not making an argument about the inherent notability of these individuals, I am saying that the articles that were written ''did not demonstrate'' the notability. I'll even take your word for them being notabale and meeting NPOL, but the articles still have to show that. It's not enough that RS sources exist, they also have to be cited in the articles and support everything sourced to them. WP:V ↗ policy always applies, and WP:NOLLM ↗ also applies. If you are working on drafts that are not ready for meanspace, that is what draftspace is for. A handful of the articles from this editor were also subject to WP:ECR ↗ under WP:CT/SA/CASTE ↗, and the editor is not extended-confirmed.
:I am typing out an informative reply to them now, explaining how all of this works. --Gurkubondinn 11:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks a lot for the detailed reply. I agree with you on most of the points. Usually, most of the articles on elected MLAs usually pass notability as SigCov exists. Also on the spree, I can vouch that many project members work for days and keep drafts ready. For ex., I did about 36 drafts with many refs on women MLA candidates working for over 20 days, but to my dismay only 2 of them were elected. But this happens. I also agree and strongly believe in no LLM in main space. Will try to clean up some of the BLPs which were created in a rush. thanks and happy editing! Davidindia (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
:::But since the sources aren't publiehd until the election actually happens, how would you do that without writing an article WP:BACKWARDS ↗? I guess that for some of these individuals, there already is SIGCOV prior to the election, but then why wait until the election if don't already have an article? And wouldn't the individual most likely have an article in that case, if SIGCOV already exists? None of the articles that I draftified cited RS (one of the reasons that I draftified them), but some of them already had existing articles (with better sourcing).
:::Glad that we agree on NOLMM, I think that's important! And I'm also really glad that you are wrote drafts and articles about women (all of the articles that I draftified yesterday were about men...)! --Gurkubondinn 14:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
::{{tqb|cite sources that do not exist or return 404 not found}}
::@Davidindia, check for example reference nr. 3 on the '':Karthik. A ↗'' article (currently tagged for WP:G15 ↗). It returns a ''404 not found'': https://www.latestly.com/elections/assembly-elections/tamil-nadu/2021/srivilliputhur/
::--Gurkubondinn 14:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh ok. I get your point. All the articles created by our team have a minimum of 7 to 8 refs and flagged unreliable sources like ToI and One India are used only to support Year of Birth or education... Will try to work on these and clean them up... Thanks for the clarification. Best Davidindia (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
::::What is OneIndia? I've seen it used in articles, but it's not listed on WP:RSP ↗ (it's not WP:NEWSORGINDIA ↗ either) and the :OneIndia ↗ article doesn't tell me very much, so I don't really know what to think of it. But I guess from what you're saying that it isn't very reliable. --Gurkubondinn 14:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Davidindia: I came across OneIndia again and remembered about this. --gurkubondinn 07:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Sorry missed this post! OneIndia is generally good and reliable. But one should be careful as promotional press releases creep in once in a while but very much unlike the paid news of ToI. Thanks! Davidindia (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for explaining, that's good to know. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have to prove one by one for each piece of content that it is not correct or AI. (This is quite a difficult task) You cannot arbitrarily act in a cheeky way to reverse everything, because you decided this in advance, you revert everything and that's all...
--Gartels (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

:No, that's is actually not how it works because the WP:ONUS ↗ is on you to explain your edits if someone has concerns. There are very clear signs of AI-use in many of your edits, which is why I have reverted them. But just be clear, are you denying that you have pasted generated text into English Wikipedia? You should know that this is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline, and you might want to read the WP:USED-AI? ↗ guide before answering. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Gartels: can you explain to me why these edits are not generated? The reason that I reverted was that I found communication from a chatbot in one of your edits, and several other ones had invalid sources that fail the WP:V ↗ policy. I've gone through them now with a finer comb, and I've found issues in all of them. Mistakes happen, but that's why people are checking edits. The WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline is also relatively new, so you might just not have been aware of it. Could you maybe explain to me how you made those edits?
:But on another point, I would suggest that you change the section header that you chose here on the talk page. The current one could easily be interpreted as an WP:ASPERSION ↗, and it is needlessly combative as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::This is simple Vengeance Hunting. You removed even '''short sentences from quotes''' that I copied or translated from the reference.
:: This is a sign of malice. However, you never checked the references. Gartels (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:::You need to provide attribution for that, and ensure that the text that you are copying is released under a free license (like CC-BY-SA ↗, which requires attribution) which that allows you to copy it. Even short fragments that are usable under WP:FAIRUSE ↗ still need to be attributed. Some of the references that you used were incorrect and showed signs of being LLM-hallucinations. Also, accusing me of malice (or {{tqq|Vengeance Hunting}}) is casting aspersions. Can you please answer my questions? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:::And you still haven't answered my question; {{tq|are you denying that you have pasted generated text into English Wikipedia?}} This is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline and the WP:EPAI ↗ policy. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Temp account recent edits to Islamic Solidarity Games

I was doing RC patrol today and I noticed a temp account (~2026-34594-11) updating dates and deleting your LLM tags on multiple articles (all about the Islamic Solidarity Games) in the process. I didn't know if these were still needed or not, so I wanted to check with you and see what you thought about it.

Here's a couple of the diffs to show you: 1https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_at_the_2025_Islamic_Solidarity_Games&curid=81514063&diff=1359005012&oldid=1358564081 ↗ 2 ↗ signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 12:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, those are still needed. It's a {{emph|massive}} cleanup after a very prolific LLM-wielding editor (who did not take well to this, see a couple of sections above here on my talk page). Thanks for letting me know. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::@Gurkubondinn Not a problem! Do you want me to help with putting them back on the pages? This IP is still deleting these tags to update the dates. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 12:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes please, @A Random Hylian, if you have the time. I'm updating the {{slink|WP:AINB|User:Sporwiki}} filing as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::@Gurkubondinn Sounds good! I'll get to work on that. Also another FYI - this account changed a redirect to an article after an AfD. Not sure if it'll help but the account's only editing on the Islamic Solidarity Games area as of now. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 12:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's one of the MO's that the AI-wielding user had. A lot of these "Country at Islamic Games" were turned into redirects per an AfD outcome, but were the overwritten/restored with the slop instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Makes sense. I'll report the account to AIV now; I've already put a vandalism 3 warn on his talk page. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 12:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Ah thanks, it hadn't occurred to me to do that yet. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::For some context:
:::::*Archived AINB filing (sockmaster user): {{slink|Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#User:Pehlivanmeydani}}.
:::::*AINB filing (a confirmed sockpuppet that was discovered separately): {{slink|WP:AINB|User:Sporwiki}}
:::::**Tracking: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Pehlivanmeydani ↗
:::::*My personal tracking: {{slink|User:Gurkubondinn/Logs/LLMPROD log|User:Pehlivanmeydani}}
:::::‑‑gurkubondinn 12:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for that, I understand what happened a lot better now. Let me know if you need any more help with cleanup or tagging articles. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 13:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Almost forgot, this is the thread on my talk page that I mentioned earlier: {{slink||Wait a minute, what are You doing ???}}, resulted in the sockmaster getting a temporary block for personal attacks. They're indeffed from article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I'll add that for context to the AIV report for the temp account. Has someone already gotten a CheckUser to verify this, or is this obvious enough that we don't need one? signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 13:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::At least one checkuser is aware of this, but there isn't an SPI for this as far as I'm aware. There's also other TAs that I suspect are the same user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Were those the ones that were listed in the LLMPROD log? Might be able to help look for them. Also ~2026-34594-11 just got indef'd for block evasion. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 13:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Looks like {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} has blocked the TA, thanks! ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah, those are the ones that I feel fairly sure about. I've seen others that I'm less sure about and didn't want to name. Their editing histories are at least relevant for this AI cleanup. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah that's fair. If most of them have been blocked, then I think that it should be fine unless he starts using another temp account. Let me know if you need help with anything else! signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 13:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thank you for this! Looks like we have gotten through everything that this TA removed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Not a problem, always glad to help out! signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) ↗ 13:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Temporary accounts/Rıza Kayaalp page

Leaving this as a reminder for the Rıza Kayaalp ↗ page when it gets unblocked for unregistered users in a couple of days on June 16, TAs might edit it when the block is over. Also, wanted to share the personal attacks as you asked for, it was here ↗ and here ↗ in the edits summaries. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you, @Reaper1945. Good to have those personal attacks listed somewhere. Before being indeffed for sockpuppetry, the sock master got a temporary block for personal attacks against me here on {{slink||Wait a minute, what are You doing ???}} so that seems par for the course. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::Unfortunately the user is causing more harm than good and is not willing to collaborate to make things better. I saw that there was well over a dozen TAs used to continue to edit article spaces and then the new account named Sporwiki on top of those. I also saw that there are issues on the Turkish wiki as well with AI. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

AINB and HIPAA discussion of/with Jgellatly

While I was accumulating the request for intervention based on LLM, I also collected a bunch of stuff on COI (and collusion) but ultimately decided not to muddle a clear-cut case with it. However, if that material turns out to be needed, I'm happy to share. It's far from perfect: there is a pattern of emphasizing regulatory risks (so his business can help mitigate, I presume) but it's hard to show in diffs. One that jumped out on me is inserting into multiple articles (in 2026) material about a 2024 proposed Federal rules change, with zero text about whether it will happen and if so, when. It's not a lie but it's FUD. M kuhner (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:@M kuhner: is that COI evidence offwiki stuff? As in, anything that is not directly on enwiki? ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::If it is offwiki, then you should read the instructions on WP:COI/N ↗ and email it to {{Nospam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}}. I've done it before, and I just want you to be careful so you don't accidentally break the WP:OUTING ↗ policy. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::No. Just what I've gleaned from their article and talk page edits. I appreciate the warning, though. M kuhner (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

fuming

I just have to get off my chest, I am ''so mad'' at our latest AINB guy.

How mad am I? I did a spate of source checking and carefully wrote up the result: and utterly cremated the waffle I had in the waffle iron. Luckily I heard it making funny sounds before it actually caught fire. M kuhner (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:That's happened to me too (I think with a :chili sin carne ↗ and I've been late somewhere more time that I can count because I was busy with some AINB guest). Hope you had enough dough for another waffle. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::@M kuhner: in fact, this just happened again and now I'm late somewhere! ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: :Draft:China Eastern Airlines A359 ↗

Hello Gurkubondinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :Draft:China Eastern Airlines A359 ↗, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:I've rarely seen anything as obviously promotional, but sure. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

could you check LLMPROD text?

I have made an LLMPROD and an edit summary for the Bookisher case at User:M_kuhner/sandbox, copied from the one in the Sporwiki case. Would you be willing to check it for correctness before I put up the tracking page? I haven't done this before, and for some reason I have found section-linking to a section the name of which is User:username to be particularly fraught. Don't want people to use it and then find out it's wrong! Thanks. M kuhner (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{talk page watcher}} hey @M kuhner, I really appreciate the work you are doing at AINB and with AI patrol/cleanup more generally. I hope you keep it up. I would probably wait a bit before initiating LLMPRODs for that case given that only two editors (including me) have commented in support so far. Some editors may be sensitive to AINB being "biased" or "quick to act" on LLMPRODs for unblocked editors (for editors who have been blocked for AI use, I am less concerned about this) and therefore I would wait for clearer consensus and/or more time to pass. If clearer consensus does not emerge, you could ping AINBA admins or an experienced editor with a reputation for neutrality - {{np|Chipmunkdavis}} comes to mind - and ask them whether it is fine to proceed. Also curious to get @Gurkubondinn's thoughts here. NicheSports (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::Okay, that's fair. Since the user does not appear active, there's no rush. Still appreciate someone checking the sample PROD and edit summary, though: I'm going to need to know how to do that sooner or later. M kuhner (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The "rush" would only be about what happens to the articles in the mean time, but we shouldn't be trying to prevent people from re-writing LLM articles so that only really applies for stuff that needs to be reverted (as opposed to deleted). I agree with @NicheSports, we should wait for a bit more consensus to build. But there's nothing wrong with preparing the tags and edit summaries so you have them ready (and you also learn how to construct them, which isn't a bad idea in general).
:::It gets a bit tricky with editors that are discovered after they've stopped editing, since there is no reason to block them (there is nothing to prevent if they are not doing anything), but condition B of {{slink|WP:LLMPRV|Requirements}} should apply here, since the the {{np|Bookisher}} user has not edited since February. Still, getting consensus for something that has the potential to be controversial is a good idea. What I think is more important here would be consensus that the editor did use LLMs and that the cleanup is needed in the first place.
:::As for the template and edit summary in your sandbox @M kuhner, they look good to me. I often use my sandbox to write out edit summaries and see how they render in Wikitext, to check if the links work as expected and etc. Using <code><nowiki><syntaxhighlight copy="true"></nowiki></code> is also something that I do, because it's easy to copy the text, so I think you've done this correctly. For the section headers on AINB, I've been using the <code>User:Example</code> format myself and I've been glad to see it catch on because it makes it easier to find threads on the noticeboard. You can start putting up the tracking page now, that might even help in getting consensus before starting this cleanup. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::::"Catch on" in this case meaning "cribbed shamelessly from", I think!
::::I personally think the edit summary I posted, quoting non-existent Wikipedia policies, is conclusive. But I can certainly wait.
::::Is there anything tricky or special about linking to sections named User:Example? I haven't looked systematically at this but I feel like half the time I put "User:" in and it's wrong, and half the time I don't put it in and it's wrong.
::::I'll make a mockup of the tracking page. M kuhner (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::There's no rules about what section headers to use on AINB, I just like the <code>User:Example</code> format. To link to the section you can use either:
:::::*<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{slink|WP:AINB#User:Example}}</syntaxhighlight>
:::::*<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">WP:AINB#User:Example ↗</syntaxhighlight>
:::::Just copypaste the section header as-is, even spaces are file. The {{tlx|slink}} template will even handle spaces and underscores for you, but it doesn't work in edit summaries for example (because templates are not rendered in edit summaries). If the section header doesnt include the <code>User:</code> prefix then don't use it in your link either. You just have to use the same string as the section header, so copypasting is easiest. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Tracking page mockup at User:M_kuhner/sandbox/Cleanup page for Bookisher. However I learned today that I do NOT know how to install this in its proper place. Could use a quick rundown so I don't do something dire like delete AINB. M kuhner (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Former Kiautschou Imperial Post Office ↗

Thanks for the ping. I have reviewed the translation and explained on my talk page that I believe it is policy-compliant per Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation ↗. I hope you agree. (This is the second time this semester one of my student work was flagged by someone possibly unaware of that policy; or perhaps whatever automated tools are used by AI patrollers don't do a perfect job distinguishing AI generated slop from valid translations that use some AI-style language? Perhaps some tweaking of tools is in order...).

Anyway, I do appreciate you flagging/pinging me, don't hesitate to ask me anything else or continue this discussion (I may be a bit busy over the next few days as I am dealing with end of semester paperwork) Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:PS. Looking at this ↗, we really need to distinguish between AI created and AI translated, particularly as the latter is perfectly fine (if guidelines are followed). I am a bit worried good content may end up deleted via speedies like this. (Although I am sure that it is an exception to the rule given the AI flood we are of course seeing everywhere). I do want to add that the talk page of the article used the correct template to indicate it is a translation, see Talk:Former Kiautschou Imperial Post Office ↗
:It may be worth checking for that (not everyone attributes this; I do require it for my students, however) Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::the oaicite really leaves no room for doubt, nobody is going to actually type in that string on purpose. that shows that the article "incorporates LLM-generated text" (the resulting text in the tag). articles that are machine-generated translations can be tagged as {{tlx|ai-generated}}, it is a factual statement about the origin of the text that the reader is looking at, and it is not a deletion tag. even articles that pass WP:LLMT ↗ can be tagged as such, because they consist of machine generated text. i don't really understand why someone submitting machine-generated translations would take an issue with it being tagged, because they evidently think that machine generated text is fine. the purpose of the tag is not to "shame" a user (i never put any usernames in the tag), the purpose is to let the reader know that they are reading a machine generated text (which a machine translation is). ‑‑gurkubondinn 03:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I am aware that this is an LLM-generated translation, but G15 still applies because errors like this show that the user has not read the LLM output thoroughly enough. Personally i think that an LLM translation is worse than no translation at all. Most of the time, it seems like users that are feeding articles from Wikipedia projects in other languages into an LLM for translation don't read the sources or check that everything that they insert is supported by the sources used. This article i didn't look at closer than noticing the OAICITE, because that is an immediate G15 tag (and why should i spend more time on it than the user generating it?) quite often, you'll see very rapid article generations from users doing this, faster than they could have possibly read their own edits, but that does not seem to have been the case here.
:and thanks likewise, I've let you know before and you've handled it well. i also assume that since these are student projects, you are expecting your students to actually learn something from doing this, and they won't learn much if they let an algorithm generate the text for them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 03:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hold your horses - just letting you know I see what you mean (":contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}") and I'll review this in detail again and get back to you shortly.
::Btw, if you could take a look at Former Hua Nan Bank Taichung Branch ↗, I'd appreciate it. I just left feedback for that student. Her other work seems fine (at least, it hasn't triggered red flags in my spotchecks), but that one is a weird outlier - it seems not like a 1:1 translation but an expanded one. I've asked her for explanation on my talk page, but feel free to tag / draftity it. (On that note, draftificition is superior to speedies in the cases we are discussing here, IMHO). Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yep, that's the OAICITE. Hard to unsee once you notice it, one of the clearest markers that a text was generated by an LLM (specifically ChatGPT). It's some kind of internal reference for the models own back-referencing that gets surfaced by a bug sometimes.
:::And sure, I'll take a closer look (tomorrow). I don't speak the language though, so I can't help with source integrity verification The LLMs don't hallucinate at even rates, so she might have gotten the first ones back fairly okay (in terms of translation accuracy), but this one might have a bunch of hallucinations for all i know. Once markers like OAICITE start showing up, other more subtle problems also seem to be more likely. That's one of the reasons that these models are so untrustworthy, it's really all based on chance and probability. The chatbot interfaces also seem to give users a false sense of security/confidence, not to mention the reassuring and confident-sounding tone of the responses that the models generate. ‑‑gurkubondinn 04:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::And I agree that draftification would be appropriate here. Ideally any machine translations should go through AfC. ‑‑gurkubondinn 04:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::So, taking the AI code issue piece by piece.
:::Original text is
:::1998年邮电体制改革期间，青岛市邮电局拆分为邮政局与电信局，该楼划归青岛市电信局。2000年，该楼列入第一批青岛市历史优秀建筑 ↗<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.qingdao.gov.cn/zwgk/xxgk/whly/gkml/gwfg/202010/t20201025_1814761.shtml|title=关于公布青岛市第二批历史优秀建筑的通知（青规字〔2006〕72号）|date=2006-05-20|author=青岛市规划局青岛市文化局|publisher=青岛政务网|access-date=2024-02-22|archive-date=2023-12-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231226091818/http://www.qingdao.gov.cn/zwgk/xxgk/whly/gkml/gwfg/202010/t20201025_1814761.shtml|dead-url=no}}</ref>。2001年2月8日，青岛市电信局重组为山东省电信公司青岛市分公司，2002年9月改称中国网通集团 ↗山东省通信公司青岛市分公司（简称青岛市通信公司、青岛网通），2004年11月16日更名为中国网通集团有限公司青岛市分公司<ref Name=tong>{{cite web|url=http://qd.ifeng.com/xinwenzaobanche/detail_2015_08/24/4270036_0.shtml|title=青岛邮电博物馆：历经百年沧桑见证通信发展|date=2015-08-24|author=|website=凤凰网青岛|publisher=|accessdate=2020-06-24|archive-date=2017-10-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171023144915/http://qd.ifeng.com/xinwenzaobanche/detail_2015_08/24/4270036_0.shtml|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=|chapter-url=http://qdsq.qingdao.gov.cn/szfz_86/elqdsz_86/jjjs_86/dswpyztx_86/202204/t20220414_5493293.shtml|chapter=第十五篇邮政通信，第二章通信|title=《青岛市志（1978-2005）·经济卷（上）》|editor=青岛市史志办公室|year=2017|publisher=方志出版社 ↗|location=北京|isbn=978-7-5144-2376-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2003-09-11/0433728803s.shtml|title=律师声明|date=2003-09-11|author=|newspaper=青岛早报|access-date=2020-06-24|archive-date=2020-06-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200626140435/http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2003-09-11/0433728803s.shtml|dead-url=no}}</ref>。胶澳皇家邮局旧址在此期间曾为中国网通青岛分公司客户服务中心所使用<ref Name=you/>。2008年，中国网通与中国联通 ↗合并为中国联合网络通信有限公司 ↗（仍简称中国联通），胶澳皇家邮局旧址产权由中国联通青岛市分公司继承<ref Name=tong/>。
:::Translated text is in article is
:::During the postal reforms of 1998, the Qingdao Posts and Telecommunications Bureau was divided into separate postal and telecommunications administrations, and the building was transferred to the Qingdao Telecommunications Bureau. In 2000, it was listed among the first batch of {{Interlanguage link|Qingdao Historic Buildings|zh|青岛历史建筑}}.<ref>{{cite web |author=Qingdao Urban Planning Bureau |last2=Qingdao Culture Bureau |date=2006-05-20 |title=关于公布青岛市第二批历史优秀建筑的通知（青规字〔2006〕72号） |trans-title=Notice on Announcing the Second Batch of Historic Outstanding Buildings in Qingdao (Qinggui No. 72 [2006]) |url=http://www.qingdao.gov.cn/zwgk/xxgk/whly/gkml/gwfg/202010/t20201025_1814761.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231226091818/http://www.qingdao.gov.cn/zwgk/xxgk/whly/gkml/gwfg/202010/t20201025_1814761.shtml |archive-date=2023-12-26 |access-date=2024-02-22 |website=Qingdao Government Portal}}</ref> On 8 February 2001, the Qingdao Telecommunications Bureau was reorganized into the Qingdao Branch of Shandong Telecom. In September 2002, it became the Qingdao Branch of China Netcom ↗, and on 16 November 2004, it was renamed Qingdao Branch of China Netcom Group Co. Ltd.<ref name="tong">{{cite web |date=2015-08-24 |title=青岛邮电博物馆：历经百年沧桑见证通信发展 |trans-title=Qingdao Postal and Telecommunications Museum: A Century of Change Witnessing the Development of Communications |url=http://qd.ifeng.com/xinwenzaobanche/detail_2015_08/24/4270036_0.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171023144915/http://qd.ifeng.com/xinwenzaobanche/detail_2015_08/24/4270036_0.shtml |archive-date=2017-10-23 |access-date=2020-06-24 |website=Phoenix Net Qingdao}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=《青岛市志（1978–2005）·经济卷（上）》 |publisher=:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} |year=2017 |isbn=978-7-5144-2376-1 |editor=Qingdao Municipal Office of Local Chronicles |location=Beijing |trans-title=Qingdao Gazette (1978–2005), Economic Volume I |chapter=第十五篇邮政通信，第二章通信 |trans-chapter=Chapter 15: Posts and Telecommunications, Chapter 2: Telecommunications}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=2003-09-11 |title=律师声明 |trans-title=Lawyer’s Statement |url=http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2003-09-11/0433728803s.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200626140435/http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2003-09-11/0433728803s.shtml |archive-date=2020-06-26 |access-date=2020-06-24 |newspaper=Qingdao Morning Post}}</ref> During this period, the former post office building served as the customer service center of Qingdao Netcom.<ref name="you" /> In 2008, following the merger of China Netcom and China Unicom ↗, ownership of the building was inherited by the Qingdao branch of China Unicom.<ref name="tong" />
:::My quick machine translation of this para using whatever MT tool current version of Chrome has is
:::During the postal and telecommunications system reform in 1998, the Qingdao Post and Telecommunications Bureau was split into the Post Bureau and the Telecommunications Bureau, with the building assigned to the Qingdao Telecommunications Bureau. In 2000, the building was included in the first batch of Qingdao's Outstanding Historical Buildings On February 8, 2001, Qingdao Telecom Bureau was reorganized into the Qingdao Branch of Shandong Telecom Company. In September 2002, it was renamed China Netcom Group Shandong Communications Company Qingdao Branch (abbreviated as Qingdao Communications Company or Qingdao Netcom), and on November 16, 2004, it was renamed China Netcom Group Co., Ltd. Qingdao Branch 。 During this period, the former site of the Jiao'ao Royal Post Office was used as the customer service center of China Netcom Qingdao Branch In 2008, China Netcom and China Unicom merged to form China United Network Communications Co., Ltd. (still referred to as China Unicom), and the property rights of the former Jiao'ao Royal Post Office site were inherited by China Unicom Qingdao Branch
:::From what I can tell, the translation seems pretty accurate. One can quibble about issues like weakens "property rights" into generic "ownership." and in which place to add (or remove) full names/synonyms, but to me this these are minor issues, dime a dozen when humans translate stuff too.
:::The reference did get slightly corrupted, with publisher field 方志出版社 ↗ being replaced by AI gibberish, and loosing the URL. To me this seems like a minor error, not worth a speedy or even draftificaiton. Of course, it is a good lesson for us, and I'll ask the student to check all their references for such an error.
:::User:Lrxx123 - please read the above and fix this error and check, one by one, all your references, to ensure each metadata entry (url, names, etc.) are correctly translated.
:::Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 04:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::@Hanyangprofessor2: i agree that these are ''minor issues'', and fixing stuff like specifying ''property rights'' is easy (and should be done). but in the time that a human would have made one of these mistakes, an llm can make 100s or 1000s of them. some of the "AI gibberish" is less obvious than an OAICITE, it could be the type of gibberish that completely changes the meaning of a sentence while still looking like a correct sentence. the mistakes themselves is not ''the problem'', they are only ''a symptom'' of the actual problem. that is an asymmetric workload being generated. the problem is that this was carelessly inserted, by someone who may not have read what they were inserting into the encyclopaedia. the problem is that it takes exponentially less time to generate this text than it takes to verify it, or even read it in the first place. that this creates an asymmetric workload, insert sneaky errors (some that a human could make, albeit at a much smaller scale, and some that a human would never make). that it wasn't actually written by anyone, just generated by a probabilistic algorithm that someone has decided is trustworthy without understanding why it isn't. corrupting a reference is not a small deal though, references are maybe the most important part ↗ of any article. my view is that this should be draftified until it has been completely verified by a person, or ideally completely rewritten by a person. but i'm not going to force that onto the article or you, that's just my personal opinion.
::::as a sidenote, what is up with the <code>dead-url</code> parameters in the text that was copied from zhwiki? are those valid parameters for the citation templates on zhwiki? there's also a <code>。</code> character in the machine translation from Chrome. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Other smaller issues that I have noticed are for example the title of the book cited as {{ISBN|7-5436-3519-4}}. The title of the English translation of the book is {{lang|en|The historical architecture in Qingdao, 1891-1949|i=yes}} according to WorldCat and {{lang|en|Qingdao historic buildings (1891-1949)|i=yes}} according to KIT, but the article uses {{lang|en|Historical Architecture of Qingdao (1891–1949)|i=yes}} which I'm thinking might be a new LLM translation of the title. Since WorldCat and KIT use different titles, this would indeed be a minor quibble, and I'm not even sure if an English translation has been published of this book. So minor quibble indeed, but I'm just trying to illustrate to you what kind of workload LLM translations create for volunteer editors. Not as a criticism of you, just trying to point out stuff that simply might not have occurred to you.
::::I speak multiple language, but I don't speak Chinese. I'm aware that there are multiple variations of the Chinese language(s) that differ from each other, but that's about where my understanding of the Chinese languages end. Firefox's built-in translation tool tells me that this is ":Chinese (simplified) ↗". I just wanted to mention this to let you know that I know that I'm out of my depth when it comes to the languages here, and I'm definitely going to defer to you on that. I don't use machine translations to try to understand sources in languages that I don't understand, because I wouldn't have the faintest idea if it is correct or not. They're useful when you need to understand something that you can't read, but it is completely useless to do a source integrity check or make any sort of arguments about the quality of a different machine translation. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'd love to discuss wiki philosophy and AI, but that may need to wait a few days due to my current workload. The sidenote about parameters is something I don't have a good answer too - would need to look into that. As for the book title, if we are not quoting the official translation but the zh original, I think it's ok to provide OR translation if one think it is better in the translated title parameter; as far as I know, this field allows OR (translation). As for knowledge of Chinese, I fear we are at the same level. I would prefer to work with languages I know, but due to life circumstance, it is what is in the case of my teaching. For that reason (since I live abroad in a country whose language I am not fluent in), I've been using machine translation a lot, hence my attitude to it might be more positive; I've also seen first hand, in much detail, how it has been improving over decade+. But that takes me back to philosophy etc. and I don't have time for that right now - but hit me back in a week+ if you feel like some chat about this (what I'll say, as food for thought, is that still, in 2026, consensus can result in keeping of completely unreferenced old content - I cannot wrap my mind around this kind of content ↗ kept at a recent AfD is "more acceptable" than content generated by modern - 2026 - AI systems. I'd rather trust 2026 AI probability generationthan what "one or few random dudes wrote on Wikipedia in 2000s not citing any sources" :P). Of course, GA+ stuff brats both, but well, we have what we have... Cheers, Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 12:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I also live in a country whose language I am not fluent in, and have been here for a decade. However it is close to my own languages than the Chinese language is. And as a matter of fact, I am late for my language class right now so I gotta bounce! Looking forward to talking more though.
::::::There's a lot of old stuff around on enwiki that probably shouldn't be kept, and some AfDs have weird outcomes sometimes (but articles can be nominated multiple times). I disagree about which one is "more acceptable" though, on philosophical grounds. :) ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::{{tqb|...,{{nbsp}}consensus can result in keeping of completely unreferenced old content -{{nbsp}}... this kind of content ↗ kept at a recent AfD{{nbsp}}...}}
::::::{{u|Hanyangprofessor2}}: you might like this: Diff/1360765738 ↗. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Barnstar ↗ for you!

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | 120px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Patience Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | thank you for your patience with Gurdeep Hora. his/her replies are clearly AI, and I would not probably have the patience for him/her. The fact that you had to ask nine times is crazy! TornadoElliott (Yelp for help?) 13:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

Stop removing my articles for alleged AI.

I'm not using AI to write my articles. I spend hours creating and revising articles, and the only thing you do is just revert everything I'm doing?
If you just want to ragebait and don't want to actually contribute anything to the community, just stay quiet. 6wntcc (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:Please read WP:CIVIL ↗ and WP:NPA ↗. I reverted your changes to :Wittislingen ↗ because at least two statements are not supported by the sources that they are cited to, and several other references are linked incorrectly and thus unverifiable. I have already explained it to you on your talk page (but you just removed it). Please stop WP:EDITWARRING ↗ to reinstate your changes, because I don't want to have to go to WP:AN3 ↗ over this. So could you please self-revert instead?
:Even without the WP:V ↗ problems, your edits show several other WP:AISIGNS ↗ so I think that you are pasting in generated text, which the WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline makes impermissible. And I would suggest that you take a peek at the WP:USED-AI? ↗ essay. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:@6wntcc: could you please explain why you used WP:CIRCULAR ↗ references to Wikipedia in AbuseLog/44501493 ↗? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Because I didn't know you weren't able to use Wikipedia as a source? 6wntcc (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Oh and also you are threatening me that you might report me to the administrators even though you keep accusing me baselessly just because you maybe think it's AI? And I don't read every page on the Wikipedia rules, so I was not aware of an "Edit war" being disallowed. I am just trying to fight your accusations because you are trying to ruin my day by reverting changes that took over 3 hours for me to write. And I was not trying to personally attack you. I was trying to make you stop reverting my articles that take me hours to write and research. I removed the talk from the talk page because I don't want spam and baseless accusations flooding my talk page. And again, I have worked on coding AI, for example I was part of Gemini testing. I have adapted their writing style to me, even though I continuously try to minimize it. Please stop reverting my articles; I am not using AI. Thanks. 6wntcc (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh and plus, I just changed the Wittislingen wikipedia article for you to finally stop reverting my changes, as you might (hopefully) see that the text is not AI at all. 6wntcc (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I have now made some significant contributions to the article, mostly to the {{slink|Wittislingen#Disappearance of Sri Lankan handball players}} section. Look at the page history, you can see how I went about this. You can see my work, how everything is added, which sources I have found and when, what gets sourced to each of the sources as they are added. This is not possible with your edits. You have just pasted in giant whole rewrites of everything, not showing your work at all. This is one of the reasons that it seems like you are just pasting in generated text. If you aren't, then please start showing your work. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Could you also please explain this rather large change between AbuseLog/44501493 ↗ (16:44) and Diff/1360621947 ↗ (16:52, 8 minutes later)?
::{{collapse top|title=Diff of AbuseLog/44501493 ↗ and Diff/1360621947 ↗ of A Natural History of New York City ↗ |indent=3.2em }}
{{textdiff|<nowiki>{{Short description|1959 nonfiction book by John Kieran}}
:::Oh and plus, I just changed the Wittislingen wikipedia article for you to finally stop reverting my changes, as you might (hopefully) see that the text is not AI at all. 6wntcc (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2026}}

{{Infobox book
| name = A Natural History of New York City
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| author = John Kieran ↗
| illustrator = Henry Bugbee Kane
| country = United States
| language = English
| subject = Natural history, urban ecology
| genre = Nonfiction
| publisher = Houghton Mifflin ↗
| pub_date = 1959
| pages = 428
| isbn =
}}

'''A Natural History of New York City: A Personal Report After Fifty Years of Study & Enjoyment of Wildlife Within the Boundaries of Greater New York''' is a 1959 nonfiction book by American journalist and naturalist John Kieran ↗. The book describes wildlife and natural environments within New York City and the surrounding metropolitan region, based on the author’s long-term observation of urban ecosystems.<ref name="openlibrary">{{cite web |title=A Natural History of New York City |publisher=Open Library |url=https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6270747M/A_natural_history_of_New_York_City |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

The book was illustrated by Henry Bugbee Kane and published by Houghton Mifflin ↗.<ref name="abaanat">{{cite web |title=A Natural History of New York City (1959) |publisher=ABAA Rare Books |url=https://www.abaa.org/book/171424438 |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Background

John Kieran was a journalist, sportswriter, and amateur naturalist known for his interest in urban wildlife and science communication. His natural history writing drew on decades of personal observation in New York City, particularly in the Bronx and surrounding boroughs.<ref name="wiki-kieran">{{cite web |title=John Kieran |publisher=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kieran |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

The book reflects a mid-20th-century tradition of urban naturalist writing, documenting species and ecological conditions in rapidly developing metropolitan environments.

Content

The book presents an informal survey of natural life in New York City, covering a wide range of environments including parks, rivers, coastal areas, and residential districts. Kieran documents both common and less frequently observed species within the city’s boundaries.

Topics include:

Birds observed in urban parks and waterways

Mammals adapted to city environments

Fish and aquatic species in rivers and coastal regions

Insects and other invertebrates

Plant life in parks and undeveloped land

The text combines descriptive observation with anecdotal commentary based on the author’s personal experience.

Illustrations by Henry Bugbee Kane accompany the text and depict wildlife and natural environments described in the book.<ref name="ciinii">{{cite web |title=Bibliographic record |publisher=CiNii Books |url=https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA4095591X |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Publication

The book was first published in 1959 by Houghton Mifflin in Boston. It consists of 428 pages and includes illustrations and maps in some editions.<ref name="openlibrary" />

Reception and legacy

The book has been described as an accessible introduction to urban natural history aimed at general readers. It has been noted for its descriptive cataloging of urban wildlife and its focus on ecological observation within a major metropolitan area.

A contemporary review in ''The New Yorker'' described the book as documenting “a record of fifty years of urban botanizing, bird watching, and waterfront wandering,” highlighting its breadth of observational detail.<ref name="newyorker">{{cite web |title=Briefly Noted |publisher=The New Yorker |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1959/10/03/briefly-noted |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Modern references to the book often place it within the context of early urban ecology literature and citizen naturalist writing.

References

{{Reflist}}</nowiki>|<nowiki>{{Short description|1959 nonfiction book by John Kieran}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2026}}

{{Infobox book
| name = A Natural History of New York City
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| author = John Kieran ↗
| illustrator = Henry Bugbee Kane
| country = United States
| language = English
| subject = Natural history, urban ecology
| genre = Nonfiction
| publisher = Houghton Mifflin ↗
| pub_date = 1959
| pages = 428
}}

'''A Natural History of New York City: A Personal Report after Fifty Years of Study & Enjoyment of Wildlife Within the Boundaries of Greater New York''' is a 1959 nonfiction book by American journalist and naturalist John Kieran ↗. The book presents a survey of wildlife and natural environments within New York City, based on decades of the author’s personal observation of urban ecosystems.<ref name="openlibrary">{{cite web |title=A Natural History of New York City |publisher=Open Library |url=https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6270747M/A_natural_history_of_New_York_City |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

It was illustrated by Henry Bugbee Kane and published by Houghton Mifflin ↗ in Boston.<ref name="abaa">{{cite web |title=A Natural History of New York City |publisher=ABAA Rare Books |url=https://www.abaa.org/book/1670288106 |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Background

John Kieran was an American journalist, sportswriter, and radio and television personality best known for his long-running role on the quiz program ''Information, Please!''.<ref name="nytobit">{{cite news |title=John Kieran, Columnist, Radio Host, Naturalist, Dies at 89 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=11 December 1981 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/11/obituaries/john-kieran-columnist-radio-host-naturalist.html |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Beyond his broadcasting career, Kieran maintained a long-standing interest in natural history, particularly the observation of birds, mammals, and plant life within New York City. His work reflects a tradition of mid-20th-century amateur naturalist writing that emphasized direct observation over formal scientific taxonomy.

Content

The book is structured as a series of essays describing wildlife and ecological environments across New York City. Kieran draws on observations made over several decades in parks, waterways, coastal zones, and residential districts.

The work describes:

Bird populations observed in urban parks and waterways

Mammals inhabiting suburban and undeveloped areas

Fish and aquatic life in rivers and coastal waters

Insects and invertebrate species in urban environments

Plant life in parks and remaining natural habitats

Rather than adopting a strictly scientific framework, the book presents observational descriptions intended for general readers.

A 1959 review in ''The New Yorker'' described the work as documenting “a record of fifty years of urban botanizing, bird watching, and waterfront wandering,” and noted its emphasis on the persistence of wildlife within a heavily urbanized environment.<ref name="newyorker">{{cite web |title=Briefly Noted |newspaper=The New Yorker |date=3 October 1959 |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1959/10/03/briefly-noted |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Publication

The book was first published in 1959 by Houghton Mifflin Company in Boston. It comprises 428 pages and includes illustrations by Henry Bugbee Kane.<ref name="openlibrary" />

Library catalog records indicate that the work has been reprinted in later editions, including a 1982 edition issued by Fordham University Press.<ref name="ciinii">{{cite web |title=A natural history of New York City |publisher=CiNii Books |url=https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA64653358 |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Themes

The book reflects broader themes in urban natural history writing of the early and mid-20th century. These include the relationship between urban expansion and ecological persistence, as well as the adaptation of wildlife to densely populated environments.

Kieran emphasizes the continued presence of diverse species within New York City despite extensive development, a perspective consistent with contemporaneous observational natural history writing.

Reception

Contemporary reception was generally positive in descriptive terms. A 1959 notice in ''The New Yorker'' characterized the book as an extensive record of urban wildlife observation and highlighted its depiction of species still present within the city despite urbanization.<ref name="newyorker" />

Modern bibliographic summaries describe the book as an accessible work of urban natural history aimed at general readers rather than academic specialists.<ref name="goodreads">{{cite web |title=A Natural History of New York City |publisher=Goodreads |url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/350195.A_Natural_History_of_New_York_City |access-date=2026-06-22}}</ref>

Legacy

The book is frequently cited in discussions of early urban ecology literature and citizen naturalist observation. Its emphasis on long-term personal observation of urban wildlife places it within a broader tradition of natural history writing that predates modern ecological science frameworks.

Kieran’s work is sometimes referenced alongside other mid-century urban nature writing that documented environmental conditions in rapidly developing metropolitan regions.

References

{{Reflist}}</nowiki>
}}
{{collapse bottom}}
::If you are spending {{tqq|hours creating and revising articles}}, then I find it rather implausible that you would make such substantial changes, and that you would remove a WP:CIRCULAR ↗ reference just eight minutes before you publish. If you could explain how that, {{u|6wntcc}} -- then I would appreciate it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I make two versions of articles to see which fits better. I usually do a short, less detailed version and a detailed version and just changed minor things from the longer article and then added it to Wikipedia 6wntcc (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::That makes absolutely no sense. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::If you think it doesn't make sense, explain why it doesn't. 6wntcc (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Oh and also I have had like... 3 hours of sleep today? And it's not like I'm perfect. I keep messing up the references because I'm new to source / markdown editing and Wikipedia itself. Or did you think I have been editing Wikipedia for multiple years? And I don't use AI. And I know I have admitted to using AI in my sandbox draft. But did I plan to upload or submit it anywhere? No... because what the sandbox draft is talking about is not a real occurence. And I don't ask AI for help. I don't use AI anymore, and the sandbox draft was literally the only time I've used AI in like a year. 6wntcc (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::You can read my User:gurkubondinn/REFPRIMER if you think it is difficult to format the references. There is also WP:REFBEGIN ↗, and if you want a :WYSIWYG ↗ tool then you can try the WP:VISUAL ↗ editor. I think that you might be writing this WP:BACKWARDS ↗. You should find (and read) the references first, then summarise them and write your edit from that. Not write what you want first and then try to cite that to references that you find. Find and read references first, and ''then'' write. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Why would you write the same draft twice? What is even the point of that? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I didn't write the same exact draft twice, one of them was shorter and more concise and the other one was longer with more details. I cross check with similar articles after if the longer article would be better or the shorter one would. Then I choose and submit. 6wntcc (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I literally did not use AI for Wittislingen

{{atop|status=One section only|reason=Keep it to one section and don't spam my talk page with multiple sections. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)}}
Seriously, stop. Why do you keep lying? It's literally not AI. If you don't stop, I will report you. You are destroying my day. The text is not AI. Stop adding the AI notice to articles that never used AI. 6wntcc (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:I have now pointed out multiple WP:AISIGNS ↗ and serious WP:V ↗ failures on {{slink|Talk:Wittislingen#AI-generated}}. You have already admitted ↗ to having used AI on your sandbox page ↗ (it is very obviously AI-generated, and I am pretty sure that your user page is also generated). Given the serious problems (and an eight minute rewrite of your now draft) that I found during a single brief spot-check, I find it very hard to believe that you have abandoned using AI on Wikipedia. But regardless of weather I am correct or not, you have been introducing serious problems into the encyclopaedia, and it is very time consuming to chase all of this down. Please stop being angry at me over things ''that you have done yourself'', and stop using AI (weather you are "asking it for advice" or letting it generate the edits that you paste in) and please show more responsibility with your edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
{{abot}}

FYI, I mention your LLM indications

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unsupported and intimidating user-talk warnings during draftification dispute ↗. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:Saw it, thanks for the notification. Not sure what indicators you're referring to, are you talking about my reply in the {{slink|WT:AIC#Added page "Semantic ablation" to this project}} thread? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, you are much better at AI detection than I am. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Unrelated, I would be interested in your opinion about this paper on AI ↗. The scanners I routinely use think it is AI. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Not having read it very carefully, that comes across as LLM-generated to me. There's some stuff that jumps out at me;
::::*a bunch of superficial analysis: {{tqq|,...{{nbsp}}the model gravitates toward{{nbsp}}...}}, {{tqq|Developers have exacerbated this{{nbsp}}...}}, {{tqq|The logical flow – originally built on complex, non-linear reasoning –{{nbsp}}...}},
::::* rules of three: {{tqq|the rare, precise, and complex tokens}},
::::* negative parallelisms (basically the "it's not X, but it's Y" thing): {{tqq|...,{{nbsp}}it is not a "bug" but a structural byproduct of{{nbsp}}...}}, {{tqq|...,{{nbsp}}they are not seeing improvement; they are witnessing semantic ablation.}}
::::Also another (very subjective!) tell is that I start zoning out pretty quickly without taking in any actual information from what I was reading. I think my brain has started to subconsciously recognise this or something.
::::Did you mean to say "article", or is there a paper somewhere? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::That is the paper that Draft:Semantic ablation ↗ is based on. An academic in Italy using an AI to write an article on the failings of AI. I do not consider that ethical, but I insist on high ethics in academia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, thats why I was wondering if there was a paper somewhere (something that looks like a LaTeX typeset PDF with sources), because that looks more like a blog post to me. And I agree with you, academia should be held to very high ethical standards. I didn't spend much time working in academia (sometimes I think that I should have stayed, but then I see stuff like this), and we were certainly held to a higher standard. At least we have decent standard here on Wikipedia, I would have expected universities to also have an interest in this (we're just an assortment of nobodies on the internet). ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Electricity Generation Lanka

{{pagelinks|Electricity Generation Lanka}}

Hey there. It is ''not'' AI generated text. It is text put together by myself, cross checked and verified, only re-worded using a LLM. I believe your action is after this this post ↗? I'd like to kindly request you to reverse this action, or state what exactly is the problem here, when this is 100% human verified and within AI use policy. Thanks Rehman 14:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, that is why I draftified it. As has been explained in that thread, this is not permitted by the WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline. Please take a moment to read the guideline, and don't use LLMs on the English Wikipedia going forward. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

::Fair enough and agreed, and as I said there, AI not my area. That being said, this is a very short article, there are no bloated text or jargon, and everything is human vetted. I have been writing on enwiki for nearly two decades now, you can be assured my intentions are goodfaith. Will you move the page back, or can I? Rehman 14:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::For sure, I'm not assuming any bad faith on your behalf. I just assumed that you either didn't know about the guideline or simply had interpreted it incorrectly. It doesn't matter if there is "bloated text" and that everything has been "vetted", the problem in and of itself is just that the text is generated. Someone said (in one of the many onwiki discussions about LLMs on enwiki) that "the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept", and I've thought about that quite often since then.
:::Can you just replace the generated text with the text that you had written yourself? Basically the version of it from before you asked the LLM to "improve" it? If you do that, I'd be more than happy to move it back into article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks, sure. Let me do that today or maybe tomorrow. Cheers, Rehman 00:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies

Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies ↗

Can I ask on what basis you determined that this article was 'machine-generated'? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Homosexuality_in_pre-colonial_African_societies&diff=prev&oldid=1361440392 ↗ I can see nothing obvious to indicate this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hey, I just wrote another reply on the WP:LLMN ↗ thread as well, but it's not wholesale generated by an LLM. I think that this user is writing some stuff themselves, and asking an LLM to "polish" the text, "format references", or extend it in some other way. I also think that this is a very eager editor (which is good) who genuinely wants to contribute constructively to the project, but guess is that this user believes that using LLMs in a certain way "doesn't count".
:Some sections in the article that read more 'LLMish' than others, some sections (and headings) have spelling errors, and some sections have perfect grammar. Some edits switch to using Markdown syntax; Diff/1361151390 ↗, Diff/1361218186 ↗, and Diff/1361388058 ↗ use <code>*</code> instead of <code><nowiki>''</nowiki></code>, and other edits like Diff/1359379916 ↗ attempt to use <code><nowiki>''</nowiki></code> but use curly single-quotes instead.
:There's also somewhat rapid editing going on (though it would be helpful to see the musk article in the contrib history for this), for example the Diff/1359060973 ↗ edit added {{ca|22 kB}} and was made 35 minutes after the previous edit to the article. Of course it is possible to make other edits in the mean time while you are writing a larger edit (though I would imagine those would be to ''other'' articles), and of course there ''could be'' other explanations for all of this, but this user has submitted LLM-generated material before.
:I don't like accusing people in general, so I have tried to phrase everything as advice rather than as an accusation. They've been given pretty lengthy and good advice by others as well in the past. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:As a sidenote, would you mind unlinking the section header (and just put the link to the article at the top of your message or something like that instead)? Check the notes in the blue box on the top of my talk page, I tend to click around with the mouse while I'm reading something and when a section header is linked I will often accidentally forget about that and click it by accident (which is mildly frustrating). ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Ai generated accusations

{{atop|status=Fragmented|reason={{bulleted list
|{{slink|User talk:Omniking2100#June 2026}}
|{{slink|WP:LLMN#Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies}}
}} ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
}}
Hi. I wanna talk policy based with you and address these AI accusations.

The basis given has been my past use of Grammarly. Per Wikipedia's LLM policy, using tools for basic copyediting, spelling, punctuation, grammar, is explicitly permitted, provided no new content is introduced. That is exactly how I used grammarly when I first explained, and I have been clear about that. This does not meet the threshold for AI-generation concerns.

The second basis given was stylistic — em dashes or similar connective punctuation flagged as AI indicators. Per WP:AISIGNS, these are patterns that *may* suggest AI use, not evidence of it key word there is may. Style alone is not a basis for draftification or deletion. Em dashes are great, but now I've been cautious of using them, they make any sentence clearer than using commas.

Regarding *Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies* — every claim is attributed to a named primary source with specific page numbers. Evans-Pritchard (1970), Driberg (1923), Herskovits (1938), Tauxier (1912), Gay (1985), Shepherd (1987). Some and many are behind paywalls or accessible only through archive scans. I located and read each one. From the Mossi section onward I shifted to single book sources per section one book already covers everything needed for that society; adding further citations would be padding.

On G4 — that criterion requires the recreated page to be "sufficiently identical" to the deleted version. My article was not. I have spent a lot of time revising it: tightening sourcing, removing anything that could be read as synthesis, simplifying language throughout. The revision history reflects this. G4 does not apply.

On the AI question though, regard to the Elon and South Africa article I wanna say something. I didn't really do anything cause it's Ai or not Ai, what to remove. I didn't know. I read the signs of what Ai looks like. That's what I was doing mostly, removing anything that could be Ai, any big word. But this put me in an impossible position: I was never told what specifically triggered the accusation, so I was working blind, guessing at what the problem was. That is not a fair standard to hold any editor to. In fact I was doing some feigned pretentious understanding, I was removing stuff based on other policy's, like SYNTH or even a line is irrelevant or doesn't matter. But specifically cause this is Ai, never crossed my mind.

I don't think that G4 was meant for Ai accusations really, cause how do I change that. Let's say it was Ai. Ai is about the written structure the only thing I'd need to do is to delete my article.

I am requesting this pattern of accusation without specific textual evidence stop. If there is something in the article that reads as AI-generated, identify it specifically so I can address it. Omniking2100 (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Firstly, it wasn't me that requested that :Elon Musk and South Africa ↗ would be deleted under WP:G4 ↗. But that article was deleted by consensus at AfD, so you shouldn't have recreated it in article space. If you wanted to recreate it, then it would have been better to create it in draft space and submit it to AfC. You can request a WP:REFUND ↗ into draft space if you want.
:{{tqb|That's what I was doing mostly, removing anything that could be Ai, any big word.|by=Omniking2100}}
:That's not what you should have been doing, and if you only did that then it is a {{tqq|sufficiently identical copy}}. The problem with LLM use is that it "sounds like AI" or that it has "big words". But I didn't see or read that page, so I have no comments on how similar it was or wasn't.
:It isn't about the words, and WP:AISIGNS ↗ ''is not'' a list of problems. The signs are just symptoms of the problem, they ''are not the problem itself''. The problem with LLM-generated text is ''that it is generated'' by an algorithm, and not written by an actual person. The presence of the text is the problem, not what the text looks like or sounds like.
:There is no {{tqq|threshold for AI-generation concerns}}, there are no specific indicators that are in some way "required" to determine that something is LLM-generated or not. And {{tqq|style alone}} is a valid reason for draftification (or tagging), because that is how we identify a large part of LLM-generated text on Wikipedia.
:{{tqb|1. Editors permitted to use LLMs to {{emph|suggest}} basic copyedits ↗ to their own writing;{{nbsp}}...{{emphasis added}}|source=WP:NOLLM ↗}}
:The word {{emph|suggest}} is very important here. You are ''not allowed'' to copy anything from an LLM output. You are only allowed to requests ''suggestions'', but then you must implement them yourself and ''not copy'' them over. You should also know that {{tqq|basic copyediting}} is ''only'' things like fixing typos and punctuation.
:I think that you did use LLMs in some way in your edits, but I don't think that it was completely wholesale generated. I think that you think that you are using some LLM tools in a way that you think is okay or "doesn't count". But if that were true, I wouldn't have been able to identify it.
:And please let's not fragment this discussion any more. There's {{slink|User talk:Omniking2100#June 2026|nopage=y}} on your talk page, and you have started {{slink|WP:LLMN#Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies|nopage=y}} on WP:LLMN ↗, so let's use that instead of fragmenting the discussion more.
:Lastly, please don't use LLMs ''in any way'' when you communicate with me. Please use your own words, and ''only your own words''. The fifth paragraph in your message (starting with {{tqq|On G4}}) was generated, but the sixth and seventh paragraphs (starting with {{tqq|I don't think that G4 was meant for}}) were not. Every single word in my replies to you are typed by me, and I would like you to treat me with the same level of humanity and respect. I have no interest in talking to you through the filter of an LLM or a chatbot, and I can promise you that you will ''never'' read as much as a single generated word from me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
{{abot}}

Sibel Dinçer

:Sibel Dinçer ↗

The content that's in the article as of now, is everything I've written and added. Previously, I only left the references, external links and categories since I didn't see no LLM detected on there, and for the infobox, I fixed it and changed some things up, but I removed it since the creator added it. So I removed everything that the creator added and kept what I added, and as of now, what's currently in the article is what I added and wrote. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Anything by this user is presumed to be LLM generated, see the linked AINB filings. Thid is a ''massive'' cleanup across hundreds of articles, thousands of edits, and dozens of sockpuppets. When I reinstated the LLMPRV, large portions of the prose were inserted by that editor (have not checked now). You may of course WP:LLMPRVOBJ ↗ and take responsibility for it, but I would just like for that to have been done with an accurate rationale. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

George Town Aerodrome

Hi, noticed your LLM reversion... I take it however the removal of the PROD tag is legit, and so that should be removed again instead of staying restored? Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 20:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

:I've removed all of the ones that were accidentally restored, as far as I know. Except for one, where an article was PRODDED for being LLM-generated from the start, and it doesn't feel valid for another LLM user to remove that. I'm not entirely sure if that's correct though, so feel free to remove it if I am wrong.
:Or is there another one that I missed? ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:Ah, I see what you're saying. I've removed it from :George Town Aerodrome ↗, thanks for pointing it out to me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Careful with reverts

Please be careful when reverting edits. I 100% support reverting vandalism and LLM usage, but when you revert, you need to make sure there aren't good edits caught in the mix. With a number of your recent reverts, you introduced code that no longer is working resulting in errors. When you revert, please be sure to preview the code to check for Preview warnings and errors. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 21:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

:Aren't you doing those fixes with AWB or something? Then you could easily reapply them. I've reverted hundreds of LLM edits from this editor, and I've fixed dozens of infoboxes after the reverts. I might have missed some, because whenever I can, I use Twinkle to do the reverts so there is no preview to look at. These warnings are not reader-facing, and removing reader-facing LLM junk is more important than warnings that aren't visible to readers.
:If you aren't doing this with an automated tool, can you be careful to not fix infoboxes in edits from LLM-wielding users? It makes a it more difficult to fix, especially when the only edits after the LLM users are infobox fixes. If you would for example reference AINB filings, that would prevent this for large cleanups a lot of the time, because it often takes time from the filing until cleanup happens. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:And just to check; did you revert any of my cleanups and reinstate LLM text? I don't always get notifications when my edits are reverted, so I need to ask to be sure. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::First off, I did NOT revert your edits. No point throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Your removal of LLM text stayed. Just fixed the bad params.
::Now some of this can be done with AWB. When I am en-masse making the same change to hundreds of pages, I can certainly do an AWB run. But what is happening is that that AWB run is happening after the LLM use and before you revert. If I do an AWB run on 5,000 pages, I cannot possibly check all 5,000 of them for LLM usage. So when you en-masse revert ALL edits, not just the LLM usage, '''you''' are throwing the good out with the bad. When it is a half dozen random pages, there is no point in doing an AWB run as I have to manually figure out what parameters are broken.
::Again, I fully support the removal of LLM usage, but you need to make sure that when you revert suspected LLM usage you are ONLY reverting the edits related to the inserting of LLM content. You cannot, for example, revert 10 edits because 2 of them inserted LLM, though it certainly would be much easier...
::Again, fully support the removal of LLM and I try to revert it when I find it, though that is not my area of expertise. All I'm asking is that you try to check your reverts to make sure you aren't restoring non-working code. Keep up the good work. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 21:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I was just asking because I made hundreds of these edits, and the software doesn't always deliver me notifications when my edits are reverted (despite me having that enabled). I don't know why, but it's not reliable for me for some reason. I did get notifications for the edits where you ping me with my username (that has previously often not worked for me either, but apparently it does now!)
:::Like I said, I try my best to not reinstate old parameter names. But sometimes it happens, especially when I can quickly revert something with Twinkle. Checking the preview each time would make it take much longer, and my brain already feels like total mush after slogging through just ~15% of this user's edits.
:::When it's LLMPRV edits, it is more than just "suspected" edits btw. Those are users that we know have been adding LLM to enwiki, and this process exists to make it realistic to get it out of the encyclopaedia. Some good edits will unfortunately sometimes be casualties of this process, but that's just the reality of trying to deal with this literal flood of junk. I have one list of 600 articles from one user (that was autopatrolled!) to go through. I just found one another autopatrolled user with 150k edits pasting raw chatbot output into Wikipedia, and there is an open AINB filing for an admin.
:::But the ones that you have fixed with automated tools can just be re-fixed again. At least for the most part, sometimes there might be different parameters pre-LLM user and post-LLM user. At least none of that is reader-facing, which is the important part. If I'd see an infobox being broken for the reader after reverting, I would of course fix that immediately. When I see your edits in the history list, I try to check and fix as I can. I fixed a couple of them by hand today during the reverts, you can Ctrl+F my contribs for "infobox" and that will show you some of them. When I'm aware, I fix it/don't break it. I'm not reintroducing deprecated parameter on purpose, that I can promise you. I am slogging through LLM edits, and it feels like each one of them makes me dumber than the last one.
:::{{tqb|You cannot, for example, revert 10 edits because 2 of them inserted LLM, though it certainly would be much easier...}}
:::When you see edits like this, it is because the edits between the LLM-user edits only edited text that the LLM-user had added. But then I've read through the diffs in between to check for that. I hate doing those pages, because they take a much higher mental load, and this is daunting enough as it is.
:::And btw, I'm in favour of cleaning up deprecated parameter. I'm a programmer and, unlike all of the vibecoders out there, I think that maintainability matters. Thanks for doing this, and know that I am not trying to sabotage you. Sometimes we'll just make mistakes that create a bit of extra work for each other, and I'll do my part to try not to create extra work for you to the extent that I can. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Bottom line, we are all on the same team here. The thing you are missing is that the old AWB run cannot always be reused. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of custom AWB runs that I have cooked up. So when a half dozen pages with one Infobox type come up, I would have to either find that specific custom AWB run's code, recreate it, or just fix it manually. There is not magic button to push that fixes ALL deprecated parameters on ALL pages. Much more complicated than that.
::::In any case, all I'm asking is that you try to check for these parameters, which it sounds like you're going to do. That is all I can ask for. Keep up the great work! '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 21:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Quick follow up, in addition to the above, I want to be clear... NEVER thought you were intentionally introducing bad params. I totally get it was a side effect of your good work reverting LLM. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 21:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate you!!! ↗ '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 18:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Geoffrey Budworth and Des Pawson drafts

Hello Gurkubondinn,

Thank you for reviewing the Geoffrey Budworth and Des Pawson articles.

I first researched these two authors and created the articles on the French Wikipedia. I then used AI to translate them into English, as English is not my native language. Before publishing them, I proofread, corrected, and supplemented the English versions.

My intention was not to publish automatically generated articles, but to make articles I had written in French, based on reliable sources, available in English.

I understand that the English versions may not yet meet the editorial standards of the English Wikipedia. My goal is to improve them, not to republish them as is.

Could you please tell me the main points that you think should be corrected before requesting their return to the main Wikipedia page?

Thank you in advance for your time and advice.

Nef (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:What I think should be "corrected" is that they should not be generated, like they are now. If you lack the WP:COMPETENCY ↗ to contribute in English using your own words, then you should not be editing ''the English'' Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::I understand your position. My goal was simply to make articles that I wrote in French available in English.
::I will consider the best way to proceed in order to meet the expectations of the English Wikipedia.
::Thank you for your feedback.
::Nef (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Harsh_Roshan

Draft:Harsh Roshan ↗

Harsh Roshan is indian famous actor...There are many articles about him on well known, trustworthy websites. Anyone can check them out via Google and improve this article, right? Botempa (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:The reason that I declined that draft is that it fails WP:NOLLM ↗ and the WP:V ↗ policy. It was not about the subject of the article (the actor), it was just about ''the article itself'' and how it was created. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::Let me be honest about this. I enjoy creating articles... I search for famous people on Google and look for reliable sources of information about them. If I find such sources, I create an article about them. Since the articles I find are usually in English, I translate them into Sinhala.
::Because as I said before, my mother tongue is not English... Sinhala is my mother tongue Because I know very well that AI is not 100% successful... That's why I translate them.. If you don't know how to do it, get help through AI... What I'm saying is, check this article and check the sources.. The information in the sources is the same. The article also I would like to say honestly... Even though I don't have much experience..
::Please you check reference and check article carefully..and this article other editors fix Botempa (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tqb|If you don't know how to do it, get help through AI...}}
:::No, don't do this. You need to actually ''read'' our documentation and ''understand'' it. The chatbots frequently give people bad or flat-out wrong advice about how Wikipedia works. Sometimes they even make up stuff, and then these users come here and quote non-existent guidelines or claim that policies say something that they don't. You need to read this yourself, there are no shortcuts here, so you will also need to be able to understand them.
:::Like I told you at ANI, you won't actually learn English if you keep leaning on LLMs instead. I am myself learning a language right now. I go to classes four days per week. It takes a lot of effort, I am ''not'' a natural at learning languages, and it takes a lot of effort for me. That is okay. But you (and I) need to ''do the work'' ourselves. Otherwise we learn nothing.
:::{{tqb|What I'm saying is, check this article and check the sources.. The information in the sources is the same.}}
:::I did, and the first source that I checked did not support what was sourced to it. The draft claims that {{tqq|Cinema Express noted that he delivered an earnest performance,{{nbsp}}...}}, but in fact the source used {{tqq|earnest}} about someone else's performance.
:::‑‑gurkubondinn 10:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I won't create articles until I get good at English..I asked if it's possible to fix the shortcomings of this article. Because there are reliable sources..
::::Then we'll meet again one day... I'm going to Sinhala Wikipedia because it's my mother tongue..
::::You all have more experience than I do, so please forgive me for any mistakes I have made.
::::Please do not continue this from today onwards. I may be at fault, but it hurts when different people criticize me. I only did this because I genuinely enjoy it. I am sorry.
::::I will never forget your feedback. I will take it to heart and use it to improve in the future..... Botempa (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Of course it's possible :) You (or someone else) just have to find the sources needed and summarise them. It might even be possible with the sources that are already present in the draft, but I didn't check the rest of them.
:::::You should also read the WP:BACKWARDS ↗ essay. You should ''first'' find the sources and read them, and ''then'' summarise them. Not start by writing what you want to have in the article and then look for sources to support that. Start with the sources.
:::::I am glad that you enjoy it. I am also here because I enjoy Wikipedia. I want to help you, because I can clearly tell that you are here because you want to be here, and because you enjoy doing this. That's why I'm showing you all of this stuff. It is to teach you, not to criticise you. There are a lot of policies, guidelines, and documentation here, and it can be overwhelming to understand at first. Nobody knows all of this stuff when they start editing, and I didn't. You learn it gradually. You just shouldn't be asking AI for help with it, because it is genuinely bad at it. People managed before the widespread availability of these chatbots, and those that have been relying on them have consistently shown that they do a very bad job. So it is better to do it like folks always have done it here.
:::::And I'm glad that you are going to be contributing to the Sinhala Wikipedia. They need editors. I sometimes contribute to the :Icelandic Wikipedia ↗ (and :Swedish Wikipedia ↗), which also needs editors. But I've found that I enjoy the larger English Wikipedia more, so this is where I spend most of my wikitime.
:::::We only have this experience because we have spent time on building it. There is nothing special to it. And all of us have made mistakes (I once made someone very angry by moving '':Hitler Masturbating ↗'' to draft space because I thought it was not real, you can read it in my talk page archives). That happens to everyone. Nobody is angry at you, and I certainly am not angry at you. There's no need to ask for forgiveness, but if you want it, then you have my forgiveness. But I don't think that you did anything terrible, you just were not aware of this stuff and made honest mistakes. What matters is that you learn from them, listen to us, and don't go and repeat those mistakes. It's only a problem when people ignore the advice that they have been given and continue to do the same stuff again and again, because then it is not a mistake.
:::::‑‑gurkubondinn 10:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for understanding me, my friend.... I used to spend most of my time on the English Wikipedia, but now I will visit occasionally to fix spelling errors and make corrections..
::::::There is no one active on the Sinhala Wikipedia, just as you said.. I will constantly help with that.
::::::Let's meet again someday, my friend.
::::::Thank you to everyone for pointing out my shortcomings, I am leaving happily.. Botempa (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Further user concern

Hi. Thanks for flagging that Riverdance AI content. I wanted to get your thoughts on this user ↗ and whether you thought it may be in the same boat or same person as the first user ↗. The edit summaries and content amouunts are very similar and the main topic and article was similar. Could this also be LLM edits? Should more content be reverted at Anúna ↗? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:All I can say at a glance is that it seems possible. But I don't have time right now, but I'll take a closer look later. You can also post on WP:AINB ↗ if you want to get more eyes on it, there are some very capable people there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

User inquiry

Hello there!

You reverted an edit on Eurodicautom ↗ and warned the editor on their talk page. Said editor (if you noticed) had also been warned months prior about LLM ↗ usage in their article creations. I was noted of them from an edit they made to Renaissance in Ferrara ↗. Also "cleaning up" AI text. I'm not one to assume but what's your thoughts on bringing the issue to WP:AIN ↗? Love seeing the AI maintenance templates gone but a "fixing" using AI is still using AI, yeah?

PeepeeDino (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, I think that would be appropriate. They seem to have been removing the {{tlx|AI-generated}} tags while using LLMs themselves, so this user's history definitely need some looking into. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::Very well then, I'll draft something later in the day. Would you mind if I pinged you in the discussion for any further evidence of their AI usage? If you encountered them in any other instances that is. I'm not too good at spotting the more subtle signs of LLM writing apart from the markdowns and flowery prose tbh.
::PeepeeDino (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Sure, feel free to ping me. I spot a lot of it using those signs too. I already spend far too much time on this, trying to find the subtler signs would take up more time there there is in a day anyway. I just notice it when I start looking into a particular user and looking at their contributions and checking for source integrity issues and the like. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI

I'm in WP:3RR ↗ territory but wanted to make sure you saw Special:Diff/1362310167/1362369833 ↗... '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 15:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:Ah, thanks for reminding me about that one. I gave up after two reverts. Was going to give them a chance to reply in {{slink|User talk:Politicalenthusiast556#July 2026}}, but they've ignored me and continued edit warring to keep their AI-generated version. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:Since they have ignore my question, I'll bring this up at AN3 unless you are against that? I've always understood 3RR to be <math>RR \geq 3</math>, but as a rule I stop after two reverts because at that point it just isn't productive.
:I saw that you had RfPP the {{No redirect|Shandong clique}} redirect where something similar was going on, thanks for taking care of that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::I just don't have the energy for this fight right now... Lol. Figured I'd let you handle it! I endorse whatever action you take. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 16:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I've nudged them again on their talk page, and I'll notify AN3 if they continue ignoring me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Went to RfPP rather than AN3, since they haven't edited since their most recent revert: Diff/1362390697 ↗. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If an editor fully blanks their own draft...

that's generally interpreted as a requested WP:G7 ↗, and there's no need to restore AFC templates. The point of the "do not remove this section" comment is to prevent editors from making it look like a draft hasn't ever been declined, which isn't the issue if they blank the whole page. If you stumble on something like Draft:PrivacyEngine ↗ again the most helpful thing to do here is to just add the CSD tag. Rusalkii (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:If I recall correctly, the reason I did that was to make it more easily identifiable that some user had been using LLMs and it was somehow unquestionably identifiable in that draft. But honestly I don't remember, normally I would G7 it or just let it be until G13 kicks in. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinged?

Were you pinged from my comment? I didn't get a notification. I added {{t|reply to}} by edit so not sure if it worked. Dw31415 (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:No, that never seems to work for me. You're supposed to get a ping if someone uses <code><nowiki>User:Example</nowiki></code> in an edit summary, but it doesn't seem to work for me for some reason. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:Ah, I see what you're saying. You're talking about the pings in Diff/1362520036 ↗? Those won't work, because you didn't add a signature in the same edit. You can do a WP:PINGFIX ↗ to send out the pings. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! I moved them to a new comment and got confirmation. Dw31415 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what you meant by:
::not sure what you wanted to do with {{t|efn}}, but it's been replicated a couple of times in the {{t|noteslist-talk}} below (doesn't show inside the {{t|textdiff}} without using something like nowiki tags
::I'd like to keep the diff clean and simple to hopefully avoid objections or a longer process. Dw31415 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I just mean that the {{tlx|efn|...}} isn't visible in the {{tlx|textdiff}} itself, it gets rendered by the parser and as an actual footnote instead.
:::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{textdiff|1=Text generated by large language models (LLMs)<nowiki>{{efn|such as ChatGPT, ...}}</nowiki> often violates ...|2=Text generated by ...}}</syntaxhighlight>
:::You would have to do something like that with a <code><nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></code> tags if you wanted the {{tlx|efn|...}} to be visible. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III misfire

You're right {{diff|Talk:Prelude to the 2026 Iran war|prev|1362738448|about the bot}} misfiring. If you want to report it, it looks like you'll have to post a message and email User talk:Σ. Wild guess at the bug: the pipe in <nowiki><code>|hat=no</code></nowiki>? Boud (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

:My guess is that it's a timing issue or race condition. You added your reply right before it fired, and it may read pages in batches and then archive/remove a few seconds later or something, causing it to have also removed your reply. But who knows, might be worth reporting this error, but it's too late for here me to want to deal with it right now :) ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft decline on My Own Private Alaska for "using AI"

hi sorry but that is just how i write. look at other articles i have written such as :XCOMM ↗, Evil Island ↗ or :Swollen Teeth ↗. i apologise for sounding robotic when it comes to articles but yeah if i keep rewriting this over and over there would be more accusations of me using llm for wikipedia articles.. i can't really think of other words to even replace the originals in the sentence "the band gained further recognition", as it was literally recommended by my iphone's keyboard!
yeah i do use ai to help me get sources (i check those) but i do NOT use ai to write articles. i have acknowledged that rule since it was there.
Dehydrothiotoluidine (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

:It's not about you "sounding robotic", it is about edits like Diff/1362471369 ↗. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::oh yea, ya, that was me using ai as an example. i apologise and i ran out of ideas that time. but yeah i didn't use ai "wholely" to write all words in the article i just "referenced" that text and rewrote it. forgot to add that while writing the message above yoursDehydrothiotoluidine (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::So in other words, you used an LLM. This is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline here on the English Wikipedia, and that is why I declined your draft. Please just abandon any and all use of these tools if you want to contribute to the project. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::alright, thanks for the advice and reply! i think i'll ''try'' not to, to prevent things like this from happening ever again... well getting a draft declined or an article put into drafts, is disappointing Dehydrothiotoluidine (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::note: i took example from ai instead of fully incorporating the text it generated into the article Dehydrothiotoluidine (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::And what does NOLLM say about "taking examples" without "fully incorporating" it into the text? Are there any exceptions to "incorporate" text in any way, or "taking examples"? Or is it simply prohibited? ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::"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." — (Writing articles with large language models) Dehydrothiotoluidine (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::That means that you are allowed to use it to {{tqq|suggest}} those things to you, which you then need to implement yourself. It does not allow you to copy LLM output like you did. The answer to the question that I asked you is that it is prohibited. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Gargallo di Castel Lentini

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Gargallo di Castel Lentini ↗

Are you sure it's best to curtail the AFD instead of letting it run? The page absolutely fails notability and I believe it would be better to have it deleted right away. The AFD can be reopened and the page un-draftified. Geschichte (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Geschichte, that was a mistake. Should I move it back, can the AfD be resumed? ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, the AFD can continue if the page is moved back to mainspace. In this case the close of the AFD can be reverted. Otherwise, many thanks for your attention to the creator of this page. Geschichte (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::In that case I'll revert it, I made a mistake in draftifying it with an open AfD anyway. And deleting via AfD is better than draftification too. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::{{done}}: Diff/1362988856 ↗
::::‑‑gurkubondinn 11:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::No objections on my end. — '''Godsy''' (TALKCONT ↗) 12:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Great, thanks for taking care of it. Apologies for messing this up. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, and interesting to note the behaviour on no:wiki. He tried to add a huge chunk of material ten times in one night, the most surprising thing is that someone was awake to revert as the clock was nearing 03 in the night. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM

You are blaming me of misusing LLM ↗, with this unsibmitted example ↗. However, when submitting the Drievliet draft, it was all done according to Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation ↗. ~2026-35805-86 ↗ (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:Yes, because you have. There are very strict requirements for LLMT, not all of which you have followed. There are also additional AISIGNS in many of your edits, including (but not limited to) the incontrovertible sign in the Drievliet draft that you linked to. Please don't use LLMs on the English Wikipedia, it is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline (and yes, I am aware of LLMT, which is how I mentioned it), and I am worried that you may get blocked if you continue. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, and that is also the reason I started writing you. As far as I know it's allowed to use LLM for translating articles, using Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation ↗. Note that when I submitted the draft ↗ I don't see issues of something I did wront. I also added additional sources compared to the Dutch page for better referencing. I also didn't translated the whole page, and didn't include non-references parts. The issues you raised when reviewing were two non functioning links, that I left in the article per WP:Translate ↗ {{tq|Include the same sources that the original article used, if they are appropriate.}}. ~2026-35805-86 ↗ (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::My personal ''opinion'' is that no translation is better than a machine translation (especially when done with an LLM). If someone wants to read a foreign language article, then they could just put it through a machine translation tool themselves, there's no benefit to someone doing that and saving it on enwiki. Note that ''this is my opinion'', not a guideline or policy.
:::Translating a body of work is not an easy, simple or quick task. Other Wikipedias have their own policies and guidelines that may differ from the enwiki guidelines and policies in various ways, so content from there doesn't automatically conform with the enwiki policies and guidelines. I don't speak Dutch or French so I am not all familiar with the policies and guidelines on frwiki or nlwiki. They might very well be pretty similiar, I just don't know because I'm not active there.
:::{{tqb|Include the same sources that the original article used, if they are appropriate.|source=WP:TRANSLATE ↗}}
:::I understand your good intentions here of following policies and guidelines, but WP:V ↗ is a core policy and takes precedence. That applies for sources that work and are used correctly (in line with enwiki's policies and guidelines), which is probably why it is hedged with the {{tqq|if they are appropriate}} bit. You can of course use references from the translated article, but if they are dead then you need to use <code>archived-url</code> to include archived copies of them instead so that you are citing verifiable sources.
:::But I understand where you are coming from. Think of it this way; translating something needs to ''also'' follow all of the same policies and guidelines that writing something yourself needs to follow.
:::{{tqb|3. You have checked the sources in the origin language article and you are sure the translated text reflects them fairly,{{nbsp}}...|source=WP:LLMT ↗}}
:::When you include references that return ''404 not found'', WP:DEADREFS ↗, or don't exist, then this requirement has clearly not been met. You can't include unverifiable references just because they are in the article on nlwiki or frwiki.
:::You should also get into the habit to WP:ALWAYSARCHIVE ↗ any sources that you cite, also ones that are live. Sources go offline all the time, websites change their URL structures and don't bother forwarding from the old URLs. The content and text on sources can also change over time, so including a link to an archived snapshot of what source looked like and what it said when you sourced a claim to it helps with WP:VERIFIABILITY ↗ as well.
:::{{tqb|4. You have complied with all the usual translation processes including terms of use-compliant attribution ↗.|source=LLMT}}
:::This was done on the Drievliet, but there were other drafts/edits where you only said this after I had reverted or tagged. This is actually more important than it might seem to, because it is a legal copyright requirement. As far as I understand, it is legally possible to do this afterwards, but you should try to always do it at the time that you add translated text. Copyright is complicated.
:::‑‑gurkubondinn 10:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Same or similar situation, but a different article: Diff/1362986225 ↗. Did you read the report that you are citing? I see that the original URL for the report is dead and that there's an archived url, but there's one clue to me that indicates that you may not have read it.
:::And if I may ask, do you speak Italian, French, and Dutch in addition to English? I speak five languages (three at a native level, and actively learning the fifth one), so I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I wanted to check. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::This was actually problematic enough that I've fixed it: Diff/1362987034 ↗. This is one of the reasons that machine translations are bad, and why you are ''required'' to read the sources yourself. It's no different from writing something yourself, you may not cite any sources that you have not actually read yourself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes I checked the source, you can read it here ↗. I checked the content, but not every detail. I speak Dutch, French, German and English and a bit Afrikaans. I'm not native English, so I don't recognise your example as ''"Will you be able to land from that position?"''. I never change the access-date when translating, as it was written from the version at that date. ~2026-35805-86 ↗ (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::The access dates indicates when the source was read and verified to match the article contents. Please read the Template:Cite web ↗ documentation for example.
:::::And I did check the report ↗, that's how I know that your edit misrepresented the direct quote. The FO's question is also a direct quote in the report:
:::::{{tqbm|The First Officer asked the Captain "Can you make it to land from that position?"}}
:::::What I think happened is that you gave the itwiki text to an LLM and requested a translation, and it translated the (already translated) direct quote from Italian back to English. So the sentence ''{{tqq|Can you make it to land from that position?}}'' had first been translated to Italian, then it was machine translated back to English and became ''{{!tqq|Will you be able to land from that position?}}''. If you had checked the source, then you should have seen this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Mesfin Gutu

Yeah, I know that the repeated readdition of categories to a draft is suggestive of LLM use, but that doesn't really change too much since I still shouldn't have to patiently put up with pulling it out of categories over and over again without escalating to warnings. And even though the IA's were probably related, and thus probably the same person, the use of different IA's each time they edit suggests that they wouldn't ''see'' the note if I had gone the traditional route of warning them on their personal talk page, because they wouldn't be on the same IA again the next time, which is why I opted to post it as a comment directly on the draft. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:Yep, and agreed with everything. I've just seen you getting increasingly annoyed at this lately, and just wanted to make sure you're aware of why this always seem to be happening increasingly often. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"First don't complain"

Who was this ↗ addressed to? Selbstporträt (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:The complaint of {{tqq|identify the section}} in Diff/1362670756 ↗, that was addressed in Diff/1362712625 ↗ and on {{slink|Talk:Prelude to the 2026 Iran war|LLM hat}}. You removed the <code>reason</code> parameter (along with the tag) in Diff/1362786940 ↗, and didn't include the <code>reason</code> parameter when you tagged the sections in Diff/1362786940 ↗ and Diff/1362789087 ↗. You also omitted the <code>date</code> parameter, causing AnomieBOT to set it to <code><nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}</nowiki></code> in Diff/1362790928 ↗, instead of <code>March 2026</code>. The affects which subcategory of the :Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts ↗ maintenance category the article is included in. Why do you ask?
:Btw, the documentation is a bit unclear (as you pointed out), but to tag a section you should do
:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" copy="true">{{AI-generated|section|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|reason=The AISIGNS, diffs, etc}}</syntaxhighlight>
:The first unnamed parameter is a string that (defaults to <code>article</code>) that affects the {{xt|This article may contain{{nbsp}}...}} wording in the article. If you set it to <code>section</code> it becomes {{xt|This section may contain{{nbsp}}...}}. But you can set it to whatever you want, <code>test page</code> becomes {{xt|This test page may contain{{nbsp}}...}} and so on.
:There is also a <code>section</code> parameter which will automatically set the tag text to {{xt|This section may contain{{nbsp}}...}}, but I haven't worked out if it's supposed to be a <code>yes</code>{{zwj}}/{{zwj}}<code>no</code> boolean, or if it is supposed to be the section name, or something else. So I never use it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::I asked because I have no idea who you were addressing. Since I'm the one editing the page, it could have been me. But then I don't recall never complaining about any parameter, let alone an empty one. Why would I? I'm not the gnome here. You are, and your response shows me you do care about parameters!
::My own issue is with drive-by patrolling. When I tag a page, I read it; and in fact when I do tag a page, I try to resolve the issue. I know that's not gnomes' thing. Yet we can't hide that lack of due diligence with a "may". Even if I could bypass the difficulty I was dealing with (excerpts) using a nifty trick, the issue remains. Tagging a whole page because one editor has been accused of using LLMs should not be the best practice from our LLM patrol.
::Look. I like gnomes, and I like your page. I'm sorry if my lack of technical savvy messes with your work. I'll do my best not to forget, and will immediately add what you just said in my editing kit. To give you an idea, I just spent 15 mins on knowing how to link to the Diff.
::In return, I'd like you to make sure that your hat game be as precise as possible. That is, if a section is LLM generated, then identify the sections. So at the very least, if you want to know who wrote what, then use Who Wrote That? Simpler than Blame, which would be overkill.
::Deal? Selbstporträt (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::That's fine, the parameter stuff didn't bother me so much. It was more about the combative tone, combined with removing what you had complained about. I just explained the parameters to you here for future reference, because you had said in one of the edit summaries that you weren't sure how it worked.
:::But I can assure you that this wasn't a case of "drive-by tagging" (and even if it were, you would be barking up the wrong tree here because the tag wasn't even added by me). Look into the history of the user that created the article and the sockpuppet investigation. I don't know much about this case (I think it's pretty much only CUs that know the full details), but it's definitely not great. Personally, I think that the whole article should be tagged because of this, so that the readers are aware from the start. Or that the whole thing should be deleted, or the sections left from these sockpuppets completely removed, which can be done under LLMPRV.
:::Also keep in mind that the main purpose of these tags are reader disclosure (and maintenance), to let our readers know that they may be about to read generated text, and to let them know about some of the more common problems with such text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::If you continue to hold that "I don't know much about the case" and "I think the whole article should be tagged", then we indeed have a problem. At least one bigger than tone, for I think this makes no pragmatic sense at all, and indeed constitutes drive-by tagging. Either you read the page, or you don't. If you don't, then you're just driving by.
::::
::::The presumption of removal applies to what the suspected editor did, not other editors. That's important here because that page is a child of another, as you already know. Stuff from 2026 Iran war has been split there. If you delete that page, then you're failing to preserve. This is not great.
::::The main issues with LMMs are hallucinations and sycophancy. The first one is easy to check. The second one requires some copy-editing. Either way text needs to be read.
::::All the Iran pages are not in great shape. We can't blame LLMs for that! Selbstporträt (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Again, it wasn't me that tagged the article. And look into the user account, you have made some incorrect assumptions here. This isn't your average LLM users, or your average normal users for that matter. If I remember correctly, this happened shortly before the war started. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::So you still haven't looked at any edit. Fine. Then let's hope we don't meet again.
::::::Good bye. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Yes I have. I can guarantee you that this user (across multiple accounts) was using an LLM. This is not a debatable opinion. But if you don't want to look into this user then I can't help you. Please don't disrupt AINB cleanup or remove tags like this in the future. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::For one last time, "was using an LLM" ain't enough. It's "was using an LLM on the edits of the page", with specific diffs.
::::::::Not only I will delete a misplaced and unjustified hat regarding LLMs, next time I will report anyone who misrepresents LLMPRV to threaten to delete edits made by uninvolved editors. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::No it isn't. Just because I can't detail a SPI case, when I am not a checkuser, because I don't remember what was public and what I figured out, doesn't mean that somehow LLMPRV is invalid. This isn't ''"misrepresenting LLMPRV"'', nobody is ''"threatening to delete edits made by uninvolved editors"''. I've answered your questions, given you help, looked up edits for you, and you are still combative and difficult to deal with. Please stop now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::If you had bothered to look up the SPI case and figure out something about this group of sockpuppets, you might actually have been less difficult. But please stop now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::The main condition for LLMPRV is being blocked for using LLMs. We don't even have that.
:::::::::::The "is the only significant contributor" clause should be read very conservatively, not liberally. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, that's ''one of'' the conditions. There are other conditions listed in {{slink|WP:LLMPRV#Requirements}} (1A through 1D), for example consensus can be established or the editor has been inactive for a certain amount of time. There no exceptions for "blocked for other reasons" or something like that. The whole purpose of LLMPRV is to be a tool to deal with the asymmetry of effort that is inherent to LLM generated article and edits.
::::::::::::And nobody has said "this article should be deleted under LLMPRV". I expressed ''a personal opinion'' that this article should probably be deleted, and told you that this personal opinion is based on the article having been generated by an LLM and inserted by an account that was a sockpuppet. If I actually wanted to have the article deleted under LLMPRV, then I would have tagged it with {{tlx|prod llm}}. But I haven't because I haven't argued that it should. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Hi @Selbstporträt, jumping in here as a CU quite familiar with this case, and I can assure you that LLMPRV is absolutely valid for anything produced by this cluster. They have been extensively using LLMs to write pov-pushing content across multiple languages. They weren't blocked ''specifically for'' using LLMs, that's true, but that's because they were WMF-banned before ChatGPT was even released. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"that's one of the conditions"
:::::::::::::Which part of "The following requirements must apply" you do not get? Selbstporträt (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Read further, requirement 1 is:
::::::::::::::{{tqb|1. The editor who added the content {{emph|either}}:{{emphasis added}}}}
::::::::::::::There are four distinct requirements (1A through 1D) concerning the state of the account. The operative word here is {{tqq|either}}, meaning that {{emph|any}} of the criteria 1A through 1D need to be met.
::::::::::::::Requirement 2 is about users with a recent blocks that are currently active. Requirement 3 is basically what enables you to deal with their edits as a whole without needing to justify it on a per-article basis, to deal with the asymmetry of effort. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Good. Which of the criteria through 1A through 1D has been met: someone who's inactive because he's been blocked for other things, perhaps? That'd be just great. How about "discloses that they have used AI and consents to clean-up of their past edits": why in sweet hell should testimony to clean up one's act be taken as evidence for complete erasure - it was in fact a struggle session ↗? The last clause is obviously self-fulfilling: it applies performatively, or ''eo ipso''. Irrelevant here.
:::::::::::::::So none of the requirements should apply.
:::::::::::::::Requirement 3 is more interesting. It is specifically about ''the contributions to be removed''. If you say that the whole page needs to be tagged, then you interpret "is the only significant contributor" in the loosest sense possible. The page as a whole could be LLM-infected because presumably because it's been authored by someone who uses LLMs.
:::::::::::::::That should ''never'', ''ever'' apply to a page that has been edited by 79 editors and has become a split from an overloaded main page.
:::::::::::::::Before you start counting characters, bear in mind that I mostly deleted stuff. That work counts too! Selbstporträt (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"I haven't because I haven't argued that it should"
:::::::::::::You only argued that the tag should apply to the whole page! Selbstporträt (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes. Exactly. I even told you why. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So now you're going to resist even the most basic inference.
:::::::::::::::Then let's quote that reason:
:::::::::::::::{{bq|I don't know much about this case (I think it's pretty much only CUs that know the full details), but it's definitely not great. Personally, I think that the whole article should be tagged because of this, so that the readers are aware from the start.}}
:::::::::::::::So the reason is that you're interpreting "is the only significant contributor" in the loosest sense possible. Just like I said.
:::::::::::::::You realize other patrolling knights could ask for the whole page to be deleted because of that tag, right? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I'm sorry that I ever tried to explain anything to you. I wont try that again. Please leave me alone now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Request on 19:31:26, 10 July 2026 for assistance on AfC ↗ submission by ~2026-39285-57

{{anchor|19:31:26, 10 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-39285-57}}
{{Lafc|username=~2026-39285-57|ts=19:31:26, 10 July 2026|declinedtalk=Draft:Sam_Homewood}}



Hi, I foolishly copied the draft into an AI generator to check the spelling and punctuation. All the sources and information is accurate.

Please have another look. Thank you.

~2026-39285-57 ↗ (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, I need to decline your request. Like I explained, AI-generated submissions are not accepted into the English Wikipedia. This is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM ↗ guideline, please give it a read. If you want to re-submit your draft, you must write it yourself. You are of course welcome to use regular spell checker ↗s, but you may not use any AI tools. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User Talk: Gurkubondinn

Wait a minute, is that Icelandic..?

All elected MLAs are eligible for pages

Vandalism

Temp account recent edits to Islamic Solidarity Games

Temporary accounts/Rıza Kayaalp page

AINB and HIPAA discussion of/with Jgellatly

fuming

Speedy deletion declined: :Draft:China Eastern Airlines A359 ↗

could you check LLMPROD text?

Former Kiautschou Imperial Post Office ↗

Barnstar ↗ for you!

Stop removing my articles for alleged AI.

Background

Content

Publication

Reception and legacy

See also

References

Background

Content

Publication

Themes

Reception

Legacy

See also

References

I literally did not use AI for Wittislingen

FYI, I mention your LLM indications

Electricity Generation Lanka

Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies

Ai generated accusations

Sibel Dinçer

George Town Aerodrome

Careful with reverts

Geoffrey Budworth and Des Pawson drafts

Draft:Harsh_Roshan

Further user concern

User inquiry

FYI

If an editor fully blanks their own draft...

Pinged?

Lowercase sigmabot III misfire

Draft decline on My Own Private Alaska for "using AI"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Gargallo di Castel Lentini

LLM

Mesfin Gutu

"First don't complain"

Request on 19:31:26, 10 July 2026 for assistance on AfC ↗ submission by ~2026-39285-57