W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Helpful Raccoon

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

{{archives
|search=yes
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = User talk:Helpful Raccoon/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}

Draft: Adel Shirazy



Dear Helpful Raccoon,

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I would appreciate it if you could clarify which specific parts led you to conclude that the text was generated by an LLM. I wrote and revised the content myself in my own words, so understanding the exact concerns would help me improve it properly.

Kind regards,
Falaghgap (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Falaghgap Did you read my comment below the decline notices? The draft is filled with vague analysis that just mentions that coverage ''exists'' rather than summarizing what the coverage says about the subject, with one egregious example being {{tq|Some of the coverage related to these projects also refers to a book linked with the research group, titled Advanced Integrated Methods in Mineral Exploration: Applied Geochemistry, Geophysics and Remote Sensing, which is mentioned in news articles discussing the AUT work}}. That sentence uses a lot of words to say almost nothing at all. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::Dear Helpful Raccoon,
::Thank you for your clarification and for pointing out the specific issue.
::I have now rewritten the draft from scratch, removing vague and analytical phrasing and focusing instead on clearly summarizing what the cited sources explicitly state about the subject. I also simplified the language to avoid unnecessary or non-informative sentences like the example you mentioned.
::I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look when you have time and let me know if the revised version better meets Wikipedia’s standards.
::Kind regards,
::Falaghgap (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Falaghgap You have still blatantly used an LLM to rewrite the draft and to communicate here, which is against the WP:LLM ↗ and WP:LLMTALK ↗ guidelines. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Falaghgap If you have a connection to Shirazy, please also read WP:conflict of interest ↗ and disclose the connection. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
{{aitop}}
::::Dear Helpful Raccoon,
::::Thank you for your message.
::::I would like to clarify that I do not have any personal or professional connection to Adel Shirazy, and I have no conflict of interest regarding this article. I am currently studying in a related field and have come across his name through academic reading and related publications, which is why I noticed the lack of a Wikipedia article.
::::I understand your concerns regarding the use of LLMs and the applicable guidelines. I will make sure to comply with WP and WP going forward.
::::If possible, I would appreciate any guidance or advice on how I could properly improve this draft so that it meets Wikipedia standards.
::::Kind regards,
::::Falaghgap (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
{{aibottom}}

Hiri style



may i know what part of the draft Hiri style you suspect of being written by AI? it was written by me word by word; im sure it is a mistake or automated false positive, im waiting for your reply-~~ Eckehard Berger (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Eckehard Berger the draft is full of vague generalizations and emphasis on vague sources, which is typical of LLM drafts. E.g. "Scholars argue that Hiri and Hatrene structures represent an authentic Arab building unit that emerged from the specific needs of the Mesopotamian environment". Did you use an LLM at any point in the process, even if just to format or translate the text? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::Never, i wouldn't need it for such very short text, at least Taha Baqir had this opinion, he was an author of one of a kind book about historic architecture in Iraq-~~ Eckehard Berger (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Another issue I found: the sentence {{tq|Archaeological studies reinforce this connection, noting that the architectural links between Hatra and the later Arab capital at al-Hira demonstrate a continuous indigenous tradition rooted in the region}} is cited to ''Studies in the ancient history of Northern Iraq'', pp. 97-105, but Hatra is not even mentioned in this page range and al-Hira is only mentioned once in a context unrelated to archaeology or architecture. Again, this draft needs to be rewritten from scratch at the very least to fix the vagueness and content that failed verification ↗. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)


Digital CAPITAL



I would appreciate some clarification regarding the concern that the article appears "LLM-generated."

The draft was based on published academic sources, and all references were manually verified against the original publications. The cited sources are peer-reviewed journal articles from established, high-impact journals (Q1 SCOPUS), and I have checked that the statements in the draft are supported by the cited references.

Could you please indicate:

Which specific passages raised concerns about possible LLM-generated content?
Are there particular statements that appear unsupported by the cited sources?
Is the concern related to factual accuracy, source use, writing style, article structure, or another issue?
Are there sections that you believe require additional independent sourcing or verification?

Understanding the specific basis for the concern would help me revise the draft to better comply with Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards.

Thank you for any additional guidance you can provide. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by Digitalstudies (talk • contribs ↗) 07:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:@Digitalstudies vague and superficial analysis such as "The relationship between digital capital and cultural capital in educational settings has also received attention, with researchers working to distinguish between the two while tracing their intersections" is characteristic of LLM usage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for this. However, this part comes directly from this academic article (it's open access) written by Marco Pitzalis and Mariano Porcu "Digital Capital and Cultural Capital in education: Unravelling intersections and distinctions that shape social differentiation"
:: https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.4050. This is a peer reviewed article and the passage I mentioned captures the core idea of the article Digitalstudies (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I am not disputing that the sources are reliable. It looks like you are trying to clean up an earlier version of the draft that you admit was LLM-assisted ↗, the problem is that LLM usage is extremely difficult to clean up after being introduced, even if it's only used for modifying tone (LLMs are very bad at getting encyclopedic tone correct), and the best option is usually to start over without LLMs. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks for this. I admitted earlier and confirmed now that I used grammarly, as not native speaker. I think it would be wrong preventing someone who is not from English speaking country to add an entry. The use of grammarly, as mentioned below, is commonly accepted at the University. I'll write again the entire entry from scratch not accepting grammarly suggestions and not correcting grammarly mistakes. Thanks Digitalstudies (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
:Also please do not use LLMs to communicate on Wikipedia; this appears to display WP:AIUNSURE ↗. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::I used grammarly for checking the grammar. However, if it's useful I can rewrite the article with some mistakes to not appear to be written with LLM. The source includes 10 academic peer reviewed articles. The use of grammarly, not to generate, but to correct grammar mistakes it's commonly accepted in the academia. Happy to repost the version before grammarly made some minor grammarly changes. Thanks Digitalstudies (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Daniel Foxx



Hi there, myself and some others have been working the last couple of months on a draft for the British comedian Daniel Foxx which you recently reviewed - I was wondering if you could advise which section(s) raised alarm bells for you as being AI written, as we haven't used LLMs for any of it and it would be helpful if you provided some guidance on what exactly you thought needed adjusting so we can address it? If there are concerns about tone, sourcing, structure or encyclopaedic style, please identify them so we can improve the draft accordingly.

Otherwise it will be a case of just rewriting with guesswork.

Many thanks Katara&#39;s Hair Loopies (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Katara's Hair Loopies The draft is full of vague and superficial analysis such as {{tq|Critics have commented on Foxx's use of character‑based satire and autobiographical material, noting his recurring focus on class, identity, and contemporary social relationships}} and {{tq|He has also discussed drawing on personal experiences such as relationship breakdowns and online dating as material for his later work, particularly How Lovely}}, which is characteristic of LLM usage. In particular, User:Dotvicky and User:JodieBarker09 appear to be using LLMs. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Request on 20:41:52, 15 June 2026 for assistance on AfC ↗ submission by Ahouse of Summit Group Consulting


{{anchor|20:41:52, 15 June 2026 review of submission by Ahouse of Summit Group Consulting}}
{{Lafc|username=Ahouse of Summit Group Consulting|ts=20:41:52, 15 June 2026|declinedtalk=Draft:Jones_Junction}}

<!-- Start of message -->
Hi there, thank you for your feedback, you shared the following "Sourcing consists of a puff piece, a brief mention in Automotive News, coverage of a routine business announcement, and a non-notable award listing." I'm confused on which sourcing consists of a puff piece? Additionally the Automotive News story includes their mention but also their listing within the top 150 - what else is needed to validate this source as it is a trade publication specifically for the automotive industry. I've submitted the article 3x and it comes back w/ sourcing issues and I'm not sure how to resolve, if you could help me understand better what are the problematic sources that would be helpful. Based on what i've read within the wiki guidelines these sources follow the requirements and all of these sources are meaningful within the automotive industry and the local market where Jones is located. Any additional guidance on how to resolve would be helpful. Thanks in advance for your response.

<!-- End of message -->Ahouse of Summit Group Consulting (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Ahouse of Summit Group Consulting You need sources that contain in-depth, detailed analysis of the company and do not just regurgitate company announcements (such as the piece about the donation) or regurgitate whatever the executives have to say about the company (such as the 100th anniversary source). For the vast majority of companies, which probably includes Jones Junction, such sourcing does not exist, so they cannot have a Wikipedia article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
:Also, trade publications are generally very weak sources for demonstrating notability (WP:TRADES ↗) because they tend to just repeat company announcements instead of publishing independent analysis. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

DRAFT DONALD R JONES SR



: Thank you for reviewing the draft. I understand the concern that the prose appears LLM-generated and that the article should be rewritten in plain, source-based wording.
: I intend to keep only the reliable source material and rebuild the article manually in shorter, more direct prose from the cited sources. Before doing that, could you clarify whether the main issue is the article’s writing style, or whether there are still unresolved concerns about notability or the reliability of the sources?
: The current source set includes multiple Times-Picayune articles, federal court records from Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, and later coverage discussing Jones’s public career. If you look up any source i added, you'll track it down to the exact cited article but is behind a paywall.
: I would appreciate any guidance on which sections or types of wording should be removed first so the next revision better follows Wikipedia’s standards.
: I believe my written draft was completed not violating any rules of Wikipedia, however if there are truly things left unanswered i would appreciate guidance or a repsonse indicating the error's left.
: Large and majority part of your assessment for denial was due to a belief of LLM usage, but theres an allusion to other outstanding areas needing attention, which i ask for clarity. Bladesofgrace229

Bladesofgrace229 (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Bladesofgrace229 My concern is that you appear to be using an LLM to assist your writing, not the sources (which I haven't checked). See my comment below the decline notice. The best way to resolve this is to remove all the text from the draft and rewrite it from a blank slate without the help of LLMs. Also please don't use an LLM to communicate on Wikipedia (your message displays WP:AIUNSURE ↗ and appears to mix LLM-generated and human-written content). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Bladesofgrace229 The level of sourcing at present also seems borderline, although not definitively disqualifying: most coverage of local politicians' activities and campaigns is considered routine and doesn't count towards Wikipedia's definition of notability; the only source with detailed coverage that would easily count towards notability is the article from 2018. I suggest you read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia ↗ and have Jones read it too. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up after feedback



Thank you for the detailed feedback on Draft:Earl MacDonald. I understand the concern about generalization and wording that wasn't supported by sources.

I’ve rewritten the section entirely, removed the sentence you flagged, and limited the content to clearly attributed statements from the sources. Please let me know if anything still needs further adjusting. Earlmacdon (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Earlmacdon I just realized that an article about you Earl MacDonald ↗ already exists. The Articles for Creation process is only for completely new articles; if you want to rewrite an existing article you should use the edit request process ↗. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::@Helpful Raccoon Thank you for pointing that out and for the guidance. I appreciate it. I have now submitted an edit request on the article’s Talk page.
::Earlmacdon (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Connor Wren



Hello Helpful Raccoon! Thank you for reviewing my drafted biography. At the time of initialing drafting it, I did not know that llm-assistance was fully prohibited. I've gone back through to redraft and rewrite everything in my own language and would appreciate a follow up review. If there are additional edits you suggest, I'd love to hear them. Connorsmithmusic (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Connorsmithmusic You will get feedback when a reviewer gets around to reviewing the draft. In the meantime, please read Wikipedia's autobiography guideline ↗. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yashvi Sharmaa



Many, many thanks for your work on the Alakmarsaify SPI. I had been trying to build a case for days but just couldn't find damning enough evidence. I'm having a similar issue with Yashvi Sharmaa (I don't want to ping the user so leaving the name unlinked for now). I'm 99.9% sure that this user is Alak as well. The overlap is heavy with Alak:


The problem I'm having is that overlap on its own is not enough and, like Hirematviru, this failed the CU check, so the account can only be blocked on diffs but I'm struggling to find clear smoking gun diffs. Is this user on your radar and, if so, have you got any damning evidence that would enable this account to be blocked? <span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span><sup><span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span></sup> 18:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:They also removed negative info from Mohamed Muizzu ↗, which was also done by {{np|Insight94Editor}} and {{np|Authentic2024}} (although neither are confirmed socks). I think the best argument for blocking as a sock is that the overwhelming evidence for Hirematviru being a sock implies that CU should be weighted less for other suspicious accounts. They could also be blocked for generic UPE like {{np|Insight94Editor}}. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP



Dear Helpful Raccoon,

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I'm confused on why you believe my copy was created by an LLM (such as ChatGPT)? I admittedly used ChatGPT in a previous version to help with formatting and cleaning up some grammatical errors and was rejected.

I then took the time to rewrite the entirety of the draft, only to be declined again for again looking like an LLM wrote this. I swear this latest draft was written by myself and I used another law firm's wiki page as a guide to help with structure, but I avoided any using any LLM's on the latest draft because I was previously declined for that issue.

I'm hoping to get some advice on how to get this corrected. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Akshrider10 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:@Akshrider10 It appears you did rewrite most of the draft but didn't really change the "Notable matters and press coverage" section from the original version. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:"Press coverage" sections in general are a common sign of LLM usage; see WP:OVERATTRIBUTION ↗. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Alex Pineschi RIP



Dear Mr Helpful Raccoon, I've rewritten all by hand, line after line. I hope that it works now. Pls take a look as U can, Thx!
--Miniussi (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:@Miniussi It looks like you just added/modified a few words, which does not fix the problems caused by LLM usage. You need to delete all the text in the draft, or at least the text that LLM helped to write, and start over from a blank slate without the use of LLMs. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Consortium for Undergraduate International Business Education (CUIBE)



Dear fellow volunteer wiki editor:

I just wanted to make sure that my revised resubmission of this draft was received and is under consideration. I edited the draft and left a note, instead of using the "Submit" button.

Thank you for all your work! NuevoLuna (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:Sorry, I have just finalized the process by using the "Submit" button. If nothing else is needed at this point, please ignore my note above. NuevoLuna (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::@NuevoLuna I reviewed it, the main problem is that it is written from the organization's perspective, boasting its goals and accomplishments instead of summarizing what others have written about it. If you are associated with this organization, you should disclose your connection per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ↗. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::As you can see from my contributions, I am not an SPA. There is no COI here either. I am a volunteer editor, like you and many others. I will revise the draft, following your guidance. Thanks! NuevoLuna (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)