User Talk: Joko2468

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

Your Files for Upload request: New photo for Andriy Melnyk (officer) ↗

20px ↗ Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload ↗! I've looked over your request and left a comment. Please check the comment and respond at your request on the main Files for upload ↗ page (not here). Your request will stay there for seven days and then it will be archived. Regards, '''<nowiki>'''</nowiki>User:CanonNi<nowiki> ↗'''</nowiki>''' (talk • contribs ↗) 12:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Your Files for Upload request: New photo for Andriy Melnyk (officer) ↗

20px ↗ Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload ↗! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main Files for upload ↗ page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive ↗. Regards, ''''''[[<big>User:CanonNi</big>]]'''''' (💬 • ✍️ ↗) 01:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the UNRada in 1957.jpg ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the UNRada in 1957.jpg ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗.   --Min☠︎rax«¦'''talk'''¦» 01:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the UNRada in 1957 Melnykites.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the UNRada in 1957 Melnykites.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the Ukrainian National Alliance in France, 1958.jpg

64px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Thank you for uploading ''':File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the Ukrainian National Alliance in France, 1958.jpg ↗'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content ↗. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline ↗ is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag ↗; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page ↗. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Melnyk-bandera konovalets 1958 anniversary.jpg

64px|left|alt=|link= ↗
Thank you for uploading ''':File:Melnyk-bandera konovalets 1958 anniversary.jpg ↗'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content ↗. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline ↗ is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag ↗; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page ↗. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the Ukrainian National Alliance in France, 1958.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Andriy Melnyk addressing the Ukrainian National Alliance in France, 1958.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Melnyk-bandera konovalets 1958 anniversary.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Melnyk-bandera konovalets 1958 anniversary.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

RFC

Sorry, people started !voting before we'd sorted things out. I should've removed the RfC tag and then we use that discussion to workshop the RfC. This probably won't produce any actionable consensus, but if people agree there's a problem w overreliance on media sources then that'd be something Kowal2701 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

:That's alright, it's provided me with the necessary foundation to support improving the lede/infobox and correcting any biases. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:A8B6:FBDE:1E41:91A5 ↗ (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Nastup

Hi, you replaced ↗ Nastup (OUN(m)) ↗, but forgot to replace it in other articles. I did this. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 18:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

:Oh thank you, I had no idea it was linked to in other articles since it's a little niche-- I only changed the disambiguation page. Cheers. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:E9B9:7858:605C:F680 ↗ (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the Balkans or Eastern Europe''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia ↗;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines ↗;

follow editorial and behavioural best practices;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system ↗.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'', you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic here ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }} TylerBurden (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No i did not revert your edit

I was just trying to edit the colors. Mb. ⛿ '''WeaponizingArchitecture''' | '''yell at me''' 23:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

:Oh okay thank you. And thanks for doing that by the way, it looks great. Joko2468 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::your welcome! ⛿ '''WeaponizingArchitecture''' | '''yell at me''' 00:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Joko2468'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Hierarchy of information}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Hierarchy of information ↗}}.


See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

<div></div>
</div>
|}

A cup of tea for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I read the discussion you just had and felt like giving you a nice warm cup of tea. Lova Falk (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you :) Joko2468 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

discord?

you mentioned a project on the talk page and stuff, so i felt the need to ask if u have a discord acc (OwO) ~2025-32570-02 ↗ (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry but I don't really use Discord. By project I just meant a page that I'm rewriting in editing mode, but it's a ton of research so project feels about right. Joko2468 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
::btw i wrote a lot on vichy on its article, but through anonimous edits ~2025-32570-02 ↗ (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh nice, the article I'm rewriting is Charles Huntziger ↗. I'm using Paxton's books and a 2014 biography to write the Vichy section, I'll ping you when I finish it so you can check (I'd rather write it on my lonesome for now, hope you understand). Joko2468 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
::::This is only so I can catch my own mistakes btw. Joko2468 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC) {{bots|deny=DPL bot}}

</div>
</div>

Military History Newcomer of the Year awards - runner up

{{tmbox
| image = 60px ↗
| style = background-color: WhiteSmoke;
| text = '''{{font|text=The WikiProject Barnstar|size=x-large}}''' {{hr}} You have been selected as a runner-up for the Military History Newcomer of the Year ↗ by a popular vote of your peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. On behalf of the coordinators ↗ of WikiProject Military history ↗, please accept this token of gratitude and appreciation on behalf of the project; we hope to see more of you in the years to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) ↗ 00:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
}}

Happy New Year, Joko2468!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''Joko2468''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 Abishe (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC) 
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} Abishe (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hélène Studler ↗

Hi thanks for creating this article. When we translate or borrow from other language wikis it’s a requirement to acknowledge the source. The best way to do this is to include it in your edit summary and there’s also a translation template you can add to the talk page. If you can confirm whether any material for this article was sourced from another language Wikipedia I’ll make the necessary edit if it is needed. Happy editing and please leave a message on my talk page if you need any help Mccapra (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you but I didn't borrow any material from another language Wikipedia. The article is entirely written from the cited sources, a lot of which I got from the bibliography of French Wikipedia. Joko2468 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
:The main sources I used (Molette and Michel) aren't used on any of the other articles. Joko2468 (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
::Great, thanks for confirming. All the best Mccapra (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
:::To you too :) Joko2468 (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Note on linking regular words

Hi Joko2468, I'm mentioning this here because I see you've been doing it across many articles: we don't normally link regular English words if they aren't technical or aren't of special relevance to the topic. The word "pacified", for example, should normally not need to be linked to Pacification (military action) ↗ (likewise with War ↗, Battle ↗, etc.). For the future, have a look at MOS:OVERLINK ↗ (the guideline on "overlinking").

On a related note, you should also look at WP:NOTDICTIONARY ↗ and keep it in mind. I'm not sure if Pacification (military action) ↗, for example, really complies with that guideline. R Prazeres (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

:Ah okay thank you. I thought it was a grey area because it's a euphemism but I'll hold off from doing any more. Joko2468 (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
::No worries, it's just a minor inconvenience. Feel free to keep linking it if you do still think it's a helpful link for readers in certain articles; just use some restraint and don't automatically link the word in every context. Happy editing, R Prazeres (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Henri Giraud ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Henri Giraud ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Henri Giraud/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

:Great thanks! I've literally just finished a big project, so excellent timing. The notes in the talk page are a bit cumbersome, if you have any questions feel free to ping me. Joko2468 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Henri Giraud ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Henri Giraud ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Henri Giraud/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Henri Giraud ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Henri Giraud ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Henri Giraud/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for your time, much appreciated! Joko2468 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:Thanks for reviewing my articles, I'll pay it forward. Joko2468 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Maurice Gamelin ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Maurice Gamelin ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Maurice Gamelin/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrueMoriarty -- TrueMoriarty (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Maurice Gamelin ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Maurice Gamelin ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Maurice Gamelin/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrueMoriarty -- TrueMoriarty (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse

Please don't remove answered questions from The Teahouse, or other pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits ↗ 17:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

:Oh sorry, I didn't want to waste editors' time. Joko2468 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your patience during the Marsha P. Johnson review. Been having a rough week, so it was extra appreciated!
|} Spookyaki (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:Very kind of you thanks! Great work on the article. Joko2468 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Joko2468'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|What are the relevant guidelines for this content dispute?}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to What are the relevant guidelines for this content dispute? ↗}}.


See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

<div></div>
</div>
|}

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Good work on improving Thug Behram ↗. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you :) Joko2468 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Heads up...

A link to your AI essay has been added to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence resources ↗.    — ''The Transhumanist''   09:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

:Great thanks! Joko2468 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responsibly using large language models

I read your essay.

Have you ever tried feeding an existing article into a chatbot and have it analyze it?

I noticed that you did not recommend doing that in your essay (nor provided tips on how to do so), and I wondered if you tried that approach on the essay itself.

So, I had perplexity.ai analyze your essay.

Here's the prompt I used, which I followed with the entire wikisource of your essay including the title at the top...

<blockquote>''Analyze this Wikipedia essay, including identifying misplaced assumptions, errors in logic, biases, gaps in coverage, overlooked responsible uses, and foregone opportunities:''</blockquote>

I was blown away by the results, and came to the conclusion that you did not do so, because you would have definitely addressed at least some of those issues in your writing process.

The reason I chose perplexity.ai for this, rather than some other chatbot, is because it has an added layer that selects among multiple LLMs depending on the task asked of it and the complexity and sophistication of the prompt. Its arsenal includes its own models plus an assortment of leading third party LLMs. In comparison, many of its competitors are limited to their own brands.

The next thing I did was request this of perplexity: "Now analyze my prompt for effectiveness (what's missing, etc.)."

It was just as unforgiving with my prompt as it was with your essay, but this time it followed its analysis with a suggested revision of my prompt:

<blockquote>''Analyze this Wikipedia essay in depth. Identify misplaced assumptions, errors in logic, biases, gaps in coverage, overlooked responsible uses of LLMs, and foregone opportunities. Then propose specific changes (e.g., new sections, reframed paragraphs, or examples) that would make the essay more balanced, practical, and policy‑aligned. Organize the answer in clear sections with bullet points.''</blockquote>

So, I opened a new window, started a new session of perplexity.ai, and repeated the process with that prompt. (Starting over like this in a new session avoids any bias inherent in the contextual memory of the previous session, and any potential algorithmic confusion that can be caused by pre-existing discussion.)

Its answer started off with this:

<blockquote>''The essay is broadly consistent with current policy, but it over‑emphasizes risks, under‑specifies practical workflows, and omits several clearly permitted, high‑value uses of LLMs. Below is a structured critique and a set of concrete revision proposals.''</blockquote>

And then it dissected the essay even better than it did the first time, all in new wording. I felt I had an improved understanding of these issues after reading these 2 sessions. I almost left it at that. But, since a reiteration helped, I thought "why not try another?"

So, in the same session, I wrote this:

<blockquote>''In the prompt it says "Identify misplaced assumptions, errors in logic, biases, gaps in coverage, overlooked responsible uses of LLMs, and foregone opportunities."

''What else could be identified to improve the essay?

''Revise the prompt to include those things.</blockquote>

The AI pointed out "several additional kinds of critique that would sharpen and deepen the analysis of the essay." I had missed a lot. At the end of its in-depth explanation, here is the expanded prompt it recommended:

<blockquote>
''Analyze this Wikipedia essay in depth: “Wikipedia:Responsibly using large language models.” Identify and explain:

''Misplaced assumptions

''Errors in logic or reasoning

''Biases in framing or emphasis

''Gaps in coverage

''Overlooked responsible uses of LLMs

''Foregone opportunities for clearer or more constructive guidance

''Problems of rhetorical effectiveness (tone, clarity, audience fit)

''Ambiguities or inconsistencies in how the essay relates to binding policies and related pages

''Weaknesses in practical usability (e.g., missing workflows, checklists, or examples)

''Important edge cases and scenarios that are left unaddressed

''Maintenance and future‑proofing issues (how well the essay is likely to age)

''Then propose specific, concrete changes (e.g., new sections, reframed paragraphs, added or revised examples, checklists, or decision rules) that would make the essay more balanced, practical, easy to apply, and clearly aligned with Wikipedia’s existing policies and processes. Organize the answer in clear sections with bullet points. </blockquote>

I hadn't expected that, and started to get goosebumps in contemplation of the next session. I started another window, fired up perplexity.ai yet again, and plugged in that prompt, followed by your essay...

As I read its response, I involuntarily had visions of an AI-dominated future. The critique was so exquisite, that it was magnitudes beyond any analysis that I could write. I'm in shock. My fingers and toes are tingling. From now on, I'm never going to read an essay or edit an article without running it through an AI at least 3 times in succession!

One of the tasks on my to do list is to install OpenClaw ↗. It's an app in the next phase of AI advancement: agentic AI, which can plan, use tools, and act toward user‑specified goals (such as analyzing an essay 3 times in succession). I asked perplexity.ai what the phase following that will likely be, and it said:

<blockquote>''Autonomous / self‑directed AI, with self-improving workflows. The key shift is from “the human sets the task and the agent executes” to “the human sets the bounds and objectives, and the system helps decide what tasks even exist.” Expect early prototypes of autonomous and collective AI emerging in 2026-2027, with broader adoption by 2030.''</blockquote>

It's overall explanation was more extensive than that, and by "collective" and "system", it meant lots of computers working together as a community. I then asked if that would make human-edited works obsolete, and it answered "No, autonomous and collective AI won't render human-edited works obsolete, but it will likely transform editing roles into higher-level oversight and creative direction."

Which was basically saying "yes and no" at the same time, because I was asking in the context of Wikipedia editing, which is entirely hands-on.

I think we will have a lot of adapting to do in the near future.

In the meantime, I hope the experiment above has helped elucidate some techniques to improving articles (and essays) that you may find useful, and perhaps worthy of recommending in your essay to Wikipedia's editors-at-large.

I'm interested in learning your reactions if and when you try the above experiment.

Regards,    — ''The Transhumanist''   11:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

:Great thank you! I've seen this recommended before but when I briefly tried it with ChatGPT a while back I assumed I must have been missing something because it was useless. I did think this was a blindspot in the essay but I don't really have any personal experience with it, it's supposed to be covered as 'research direction' but that's obviously quite vague. I haven't actually used Perplexity before, the essay could definitely do with improvements by someone with more expertise/ experience on the matter.
:One main criticism I have of Perplexity's analysis is that it hasn't really understood the ''raison d'être ↗'' of the essay-- to help inexperienced editors wishing to experiment with LLMs to avoid violating Wikipedia's policies. In that vein it's supposed to be quite simple and emphasise the risks (even though that may discourage adoption). To be honest the essay may want to take a more structured 'how to' approach with a section on risk, but then it shouldn't be treated as an aside. Perhaps full-on 'how to' guides would be more appropriate for the Help pages you started a discussion ↗ on, I didn't feel I had the authority to write and recommend these. Some of its feedback are limitations I was aware of but decided to keep since it's aimed at the newest of users.
:I don't know about the feedback you received but there some issues with the advice Perplexity gave me:
:* {{tq|Frames LLMs as a net risk, emphasizing pitfalls over benefits, which biases against adoption despite WP:AGF ↗ (assume good faith) for tools.}} This guideline is about other editors and not tools, indicating that this approach will sometimes offer superficially synthesised and inaccurate advice.
:* {{tq|Downplays non-content uses (e.g., copyediting) while hyper-focusing on bans, creating a risk-averse tone that stifles innovation.}} 'Promoting innovation' is not the purpose of the essay and, as I said above, I didn't feel I had the authority to make such recommendations. This sort of advice is repeated a couple of times in the feedback.
:* Under "Overlooked Responsible Uses": {{tq|Generating alt text for images under WP:ALT.}} This is banned under the new policy ↗.
:* {{tq|Idea generation for stub expansion, followed by source verification.}} This is already covered as 'research direction', but quite vaguely.
:* {{tq|Inconsistent with WP:NOTSOFTWARE ↗ (LLMs as tools are fine if compliant); essay blurs this.}} This guideline doesn't appear to exist and appears to be a hallucination. It also appears to suggest a violation of the new policy.
:* {{tq|Unclear if "outside content generation" includes minor rewrites, vs. strict ban in linked policy.}} Because of the mechanics of how LLMs generate text, it doesn't hold an understanding of the policy like a human would.
:* {{tq|Collaborative editing: One editor's LLM output reviewed by another.}} This is banned.
:However, there is some very useful advice here:
:* On gaps it recommends accessibility aids (like help with dyslexia) and specifically getting the LLM to provide you with keywords for Google Scholar, though it also recommends translation assistance (which is signposted to).
:* {{tq|Audience mismatch: too vague for rookies, redundant for veterans.}} This is very valid, the essay was intended to be a placeholder.
:* {{tq|No workflows... Absent checklists...}} This is also very valid but constitutes giving advice beyond the scope of the essay.
:* {{tq|Static warnings age poorly as LLMs improve (e.g., by March 2026, retrieval-augmented models reduce hallucinations).}} I was actually going to add a note on this, but the point is that RAG-based LLMs (like NotebookLM) will still sometimes hallucinate even if they do so less often.
:Some of the criticism is more subjective, like confusing the formal tone with a joke-- maybe this wasn't appropriate but I thought it might serve to make light of the relationship and avoid condemnatory undertones.
:All in all, I think this could be useful but if it were up to me I wouldn't recommend to anyone not well-versed in the article subject or Wikipedia policy. The LLM has no ability to hold an understanding of and apply the sum of Wikipedia policy on a case-by-case basis and repeatably recommends policy violations. I think if I were to specifically namecheck this use case, the material in the essay on research direction covers the pitfalls editors might want to be aware of (albeit vaguely). Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it was very helpful. Joko2468 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: {{ping|Викидим|Moxy}} ping.

:: Interesting. What prompts did you use for the experiment? It looks like the models it selected for me were a much higher grade than whatever produced the results in your post above. That's a big problem, as I assumed the quality of the results you obtained would be relatively comparable. On the other hand, if this is the case (that somehow you accessed an older or less capable LLM model), it makes the selection of model used paramount, and factors into responsible use. Not all LLMs are created equal, and as Викидим has cautioned, all free tier and low cost LLMs are junk. Lumping all LLMs together as a single class overlooks the benefits of the state-of-the art tools. The cutting edge models have higher emergent reasoning capabilities (while the newer chatbots may integrate reasoning engine modules). If such a variation in model selection is introduced by perplexity.ai, then it is not a good choice for analysis in general. I'm not sure how I have been triggering the premier models rather than the basic ones, but I will definitely look into it. Concerning the scope of the essay, your intent and the range of the issue expressed in the title do not match. The title conveys the context "What falls under responsible use." A reader should be able to expect what an article is about by reading its title. Any good analysis would judge how well the content covers the subject identified in the title, and advise on how to improve it so that it does so better. You stated "The LLM has no ability to hold an understanding of and apply the sum of Wikipedia policy on a case-by-case basis", and that seems apparent in the model that you accessed, but the newest models have access to Wikipedia in real time (via Wikimedia's enterprise server) and can make multiple lookups throughout their composition process. They do have access to the sum on a case-by-case basis. Meanwhile, "understanding" (which implies consciousness) is itself not understood scientifically, but may be beside the point if sufficient reasoning went into an answer's creation making it comparable to what an understanding entity would have produced; in such a case "understanding" is irrelevant—it's the quality of the result that matters. The answers I have been looking at are better than what I could have composed, by far, within a reasonable time frame. I don't get "blown away" easily. All in all, a very interesting experiment. I'm going to do some more of these! Cheers,    — ''The Transhumanist''   21:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

:That makes sense, I used the final prompt you received with the free base model. I appreciate that paid models are going to be more reliable but to my understanding most people experimenting with LLMs such that the essay could be useful are going to be using the free models. Joko2468 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
::This is all beyond my knowledge and capabilities... but it sounds good... I say do what is best. '''Moxy'''🍁 16:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Joko2468'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|ANI archived}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to ANI archived ↗}}.


See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

<div></div>
</div>
|}

Hello

@Joko2468, Can you review the deletion process of my article. I don't think it should be deleted.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian liberation movement (1920–1950) ↗ TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:I appreciate that and have posted my response. I should clarify that I don't wish to delete your work outright but in my view the article scope is redundant and your work should be merged into the main article. I'm conscious that there's a lot to read there for other editors already so I probably shouldn't be replying further on that page. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::Actually, My article contains more information and says only about the period between 1920-50 TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::The page you claimed says only about the nationalist movement. But, my article says about other ideologies too. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::In my view, the extra information in your article should be merged into that one. The ideologies of competing factions within the Ukrainian nationalist movement should be covered in that article, they're integral to the narrative. It's precisely the period that's most contentious and requires the most scrutiny by other editors to avoid neutrality ↗ issues-- in my view it should be covered in the main article where this is most achievable.
:::I appreciate it sucks to have your content challenged, I personally find it quite distressing. This is just my opinion and I struggle to see it changing, what matters now is what other editors think. One has already voted with you, indicating that it most likely won't end up being deleted/ merged. Joko2468 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I know that my view is supported by another person, but I just wanted to explain. tbh It is my GA project. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::By the way, there's a couple of inaccuracies in your article:
:::::* '''Teliha and Rohach were members of the OUN(m) not the OUN(b), see Melnykites#Beginning of Nazi crackdown ↗'''
:::::* '''Roland and Nachtigall were created by the Banderites ({{harvnb|Armstrong|1963| pp=73-74}})'''
:::::* The Hetmanites and Petliurites are also Ukrainian nationalists (per Armstrong's framing)
:::::This is very complicated and controversial history, you may wish to consult the following WP:BESTSOURCES ↗.
:::::* {{cite book|first=John |last=Armstrong|author-link=John Alexander Armstrong|date= 1963|title= Ukrainian Nationalism|location= New York|publisher=Columbia University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DpPtAAAAMAAJ|edition=2nd}} This book best fits the scope of your article for 1939-1945, if your content isn't merged into Ukrainian nationalism ↗ then I'll probably use it to rewrite the WWII section of that article.
:::::* {{cite report|last1=Berkhoff|first1=Karel C.|author-link1=Karel C. Berkhoff|last2=Abakunova|first2=Anna|last3=Dean|first3=Martin|last4=Dieckmann|first4=Christoph|last5=Dumitru|first5=Diana|last6=Feferman|first6=Kiril|last7=Hrynevych|first7=Vladyslav|last8=Khiterer|first8=Victoria|last9=Kruglov|first9=Alexander|last10=Pohl|first10=Dieter|last11=Quinkert|first11=Babette|last12=Radchenko|first12=Yuri|last13=Rebrova|first13=Irina|last14=Struve|first14=Kai|last15=Titarenko|first15=Dmitrii|last16=Umansky|first16=Andrej|title=Basic Historical Narrative of the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center|date=2018|publisher=Foundation and Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center ↗|location=Kyiv|url=https://babynyar.org/storage/main/e0/ce/e0ced2fd93bcb8a9abbdeb5df828416f12fdac9eaf096d2766b54c989e86e48b.pdf}}
:::::* {{cite book |last=Yekelchyk |first=Serhy |author-link=Serhy Yekelchyk |date=2007 |title=Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation |url=https://ia803204.us.archive.org/0/items/4107_20220507/Serhy%20Yekelchyk.%20Ukraine%2C%20Birth%20of%20a%20Modern%20Nation.pdf |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-530545-6}} I think you'd find this the most useful, it provides an overview of the Ukrainian nationalist movement and is a great source to gauge where to attribute weight.
:::::Joko2468 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Well, I could only use the references provided, So i had no choice. Btw, thank you so much for providing the sources. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::I have corrected all the 3 issues. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
:And you shouldn't worry by the way, if you're truly convinced that the article should stand as is then other editors may share your perspective-- one already has. Joko2468 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hello, can you help me to re-write the WW2 section. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Sure, I had a go at writing this in my sandbox a while back but thought it was becoming a bit too long for the Ukrainian nationalism article. I'm currently working on a couple of other things but I'd be happy to help. And congrats on keeping the article, apologies if that was a bit stressful. Joko2468 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Nah, it wasn't an issue. btw, it would be great if you could write it in GA format as the article is one of my GA project. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'll see what I can do, I'm not particularly well read on the Banderite faction. What do you mean by {{tq|GA format}}? Joko2468 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Well, all the sources should be reliable, etc. well you do have a GA article. About the banderite facyion, I'll find some information. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Great thanks-- and yes ofcourse, all sources will be from reputable historians. Maintaining neutrality around the Banderites is the toughest part, the scholarship is quite polarised. Joko2468 (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::well, i did struggle a lot to keep the article neutral, which led to a lot of mistakes. That is why i requested you to be careful and to only use reliable sources. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Apologies I got sidetracked with my other articles (Melnyk has been in the news lately), I'll get started on this now. Joko2468 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::@TheGreatEditor024, I've finished the material on WWII, you can access it here-- feel free to amend as you see fit. If you take the article to a GA review, you may be required to amend the material or quote the source. I'm actually in the process of trying to wind down my Wikipedia usage so I don't know if I'll still be active when a review gets taken up. All these books are available to download from shadow libraries ↗, though I don't think I should be giving you ethical or legal advice. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about the material. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::The version you have written is great, Can you post it in my article, because I am confused on which part of the article should I remove and keep, because the history section contains some parts that tells about the events before 1939. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sure, I'll do that now. The material largely overlaps with what was there originally-- Teliha and Rohach are often cited in the matyrology of the OUN(M) but I don't think they're really significant to the broader narrative, at least compared to the other people namechecked. Joko2468 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Thanks TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of William Henry Sleeman ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article William Henry Sleeman ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:William Henry Sleeman/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of William Henry Sleeman ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article William Henry Sleeman ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:William Henry Sleeman/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Two barnstars for you!

:Thank you very much! Very kind of you. Joko2468 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

{| style="border: 3px solid #0066cc; background-color: #FFDF00; width:100%;"
|rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:top;width:5em"| {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|100px ↗|140px ↗}}
|rowspan="3" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Order of Merit of Ukraine'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; height:5em;"| This for your contributions related to Ukrainians. Pachu Kannan (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |''this WikiAward was given to Joko2468 by Pachu Kannan (talk) on 20:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)''
|}

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 50px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Russia Barnstar of National Merit'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This is for your contributions related to Russians (including indirect contributions). Pachu Kannan (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Thuggee ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Thuggee ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Thuggee/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amir Ghandi -- Amir Ghandi (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for William Henry Sleeman

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 16 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''William Henry Sleeman ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the letters of British colonial administrator '''William Henry Sleeman ↗''' were posthumously published in 1858 to exonerate him during the Indian Rebellion ↗?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Henry Sleeman ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Henry Sleeman ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Thuggee ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Thuggee ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Thuggee/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amir Ghandi -- Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)