User Talk: Kowal2701

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

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age =2160
| archiveprefix =User talk:Kowal2701/Archive
| numberstart =1
| maxarchsize =75000
| header ={{Archive}}
| minkeepthreads =5
| format = %%i
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}}

Siege of Silistra (1809)

Hello, Kowal2701. I would like to inform you that I did not use any chatbots in the article "Siege of Silistra (1809) ↗ " I wrote it entirely myself, without using any language models in the article. Please provide proof of my use of chatbots in the article. (Ottomansoldiers) — Preceding undated ↗ comment added 19:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC) 

:@Ottomansoldiers, that's okay, I wasn't 100% sure, I just saw some signs (like how some of the links lead to 404 errors, indicating they might be hallucinated ↗). Happy editing, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 20:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes!

A thanks felt a little too impersonal, but, re:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reverting_AI_edits&diff=prev&oldid=1348277388 ↗ -- yep, I think this a good way of putting it. Thank you sooo much!! GreenLipstickLesbian💌 ↗🧸 ↗ 09:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

:lol, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 09:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed decision

Hi Kowal2701, in the open ''Maghreb'' ↗ arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted ↗. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page ↗. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision ↗. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 (talk ↗) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Maghreb PD discussion

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Proposed_decision#c-Kowal2701-20260427223600-Kowal2701-20260423142900 ↗, I think that's going a bit far from a response to the PD at this point and your initial idea about raising that elsewhere is probably better. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

:Agreed, but I’ll probs just leave it, too much drama Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 23:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:Provided no one else escalates, I’ll do a courtesy ping when the discussion's died and hopefully they self-correct for future Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 00:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Closing the AINB thread

Why was the thread closed? The discussion was not actually over. Several things were not addressed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

:Which things? It’s just people bickering, I’d say if there’s something needs ironing out, take it to user talk, nothing remotely constructive will come from that thread Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 14:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:@Gnomingstuff, practically everyone (at least hundreds of people), highly values the work you personally do (though ik it isn’t made clear often enough), please don’t focus on the one or two people who don’t know what they’re talking about and may have just had a bad day Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 18:08, 29 April 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) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

A recent comment of yours

I was interested to see you describe Abstract Wikipedia as a brewing scandal in the recent WP:COMMTECHGATE ↗ Village Pump thread. I agree, I have quite some trepidation about how it's going to be introduced to us all. And about the scope, especially after watching the video on the Wikifunctions front page ↗.

On an unrelated note, I enjoyed reading your essays, thanks for writing them. GanzKnusper (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you @GanzKnusper for the kind words. Yeah, I get the impression that’s a very common view. We’ll see, I guess. Communities got no say on whether to start development, and there’s no way for us to stop it so :/ Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 12:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration ↗

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

DCWC call for coordinators

frameless|right|upright=0.8|The Developing Countries WikiContest Gold Belt Buckle ↗

Hey Kowal2701, it's almost that time again! The Developing Countries WikiContest ↗ will be returning for its third year, and the coordinator team is looking for experienced content contributors willing to volunteer. The coordinators are responsible for keeping the contest running and its pages{{mdashb}}including participants' submissions, the points leaderboard, and the list of eligible articles{{mdashb}}updated.

If you would like to apply, please contact one of the coordinators; you may choose to do so privately if you wish: {{user-multi|user=Arconning|t|e}}, {{user-multi|user=sawyer777|t|e}}, or {{user-multi|user=TechnoSquirrel69|t|e}}. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list ↗.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —'''TechnoSquirrel69''' ('''sigh''') 22:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

{{clear right}}

DYK for Nyamazana

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 13 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Nyamazana ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that warrior-queen '''Nyamazana ↗''' defeated the last Rozvi ↗ ruler, an act that has been miscredited to a male relative or her husband ↗?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nyamazana ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nyamazana ↗), 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 ↗.
}}  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for History of the Mutapa Empire

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 19 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''History of the Mutapa Empire ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the '''Mutapa Empire ↗''' fragmented following the death of a ruler who spent his time writing songs on an mbira ↗ and smoking dagga ↗?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the Mutapa Empire ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History of the Mutapa Empire ↗), 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 ↗.
}} Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Good Topic Nomination

Hey there, I saw that you've written quite a bit of content relating to West Africa. You may be interested in commenting on wether this good topic nomination ↗ should be promoted or not. '''Aza24 (talk)''' 04:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The DCWC is back!

frameless|right|upright=0.8|The Developing Countries WikiContest Gold Belt Buckle ↗

Hey Kowal2701, the Developing Countries WikiContest ↗ is back for a third year, and '''sign-ups are now open ↗'''! The contest will run from 1{{nbsp}}July to 30{{nbsp}}September, and the objective remains the same: improve as many articles relating to developing countries as you can to help fight systemic bias on Wikipedia ↗.

Thanks to everyone who answered the call for coordinators, and please welcome the new faces on the coordinator team: the 2024 Gold Belt Buckle winner {{user|Generalissima}}; and the record-holder for most India-related submissions in 2024, {{user|Magentic Manifestations}}! Following feedback from last year, adjustments have been made to the scoring rules ↗; discussion can be found on the contest talk page ↗.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or contact one of the coordinators: {{user|Arconning}}, {{user|Generalissima}}, {{user|Magentic Manifestations}}, {{user|sawyer777}}, or {{user|TechnoSquirrel69}}. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list ↗. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) —'''TechnoSquirrel69''' ('''talk''') 16:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
{{clear|left}}

DYK for Kulembebe

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 22 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Kulembebe ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the kingdom of '''Kulembebe ↗''' in modern-day Angola may have been founded in the 13th century?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kulembebe ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kulembebe ↗), 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 ↗.
}}  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Request.

Hi. I am reaching out here to ask you to stop directing stuff at me across venues. You did so at MfD ↗, where WP:FOC ↗ is supposed to be followed, and you have just done the same at the AN/I thread ↗. The split had consensus at MfD ↗ and I was not the editor who split the page ↗. I don't like confrontation and I don't believe your advice or blame on me alone is in the spirit of WP:AGF ↗. I will acknowledge your request and reply less often, but I am still allowed to partake in the discussion, just as you are. I've heard you, so respectfully, please stop now. Thank you.

(This is a friendly request by the way, there is little point in having ongoing issues with other editors on the project.) 11WB (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:By the way, you linked to an active MfD discussion at the AN/I, which has a high volume of editors. Linking to active discussions is generally prohibited on canvassing grounds, even if you didn't request them to !vote a certain way. As you know, a large majority of the editors have supported a sanction of some sort, which means that could introduce bias to the MfD. I recommend editing your message. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::@11WB, I'm sorry to see you're considering retirement. I don't believe we've crossed paths much, but FWIW it's very human to overestimate one's competency on something (I do it all the time), and there's often no better way to learn than jumping in and trying to swim. This case was more about a 'know your place' thing, the admins' noticeboard is primarily for admins to clerk and manage, and for serious conduct and security issues you can usually count on arbcom to basically govern things (there's also often off-wiki discussions where people can get on the same page, eg. WP:DISCORD ↗, WP:IRC ↗, mailing lists etc. (I didn't participate in any of those and generally don't)). I can't offer much personal advice as I don't know you well enough, but good luck in whatever you decide to do. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 23:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Responding out of courtesy. My main enjoyment has always been mainspace. Talk pages and BTS has always come second to that. I'm not going to defend the choices I made during the Sanger mess (there are other editors who were far bolder than me), I acted in good faith and unfortunately, it led to problems. That wasn't my intention. The warning @CaptainEek left on both my talk page and @Knightoftheswords281's talk page was heavy, imposing blocks. I'm not in a place where I can risk that. So I am considering retirement... from BTS areas. I should have listened to your warnings to step away, lesson learnt. 11WB (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::@11WB Kowal is right: learning to work BTS can feel very sink or swim, and I know we don't tend to give great guidance. For what it's worth, the Larry situation was atypical, and even admins weren't immune from poor decision making during it. My message to you and Swords was serious because the issue at hand was so serious (the press coverage has already started). Remember, in a big situation like that, dozens of admin eyes are on it. You don't have to rush to do anything, and if something hasn't been done...it's probably on purpose.{{pb}}You've done good work on content, and I hope to see you continue. I know working behind the scenes feels engaging. As Kowal points out, you can feel engaged with other editors in plenty of places, and build connections and understanding, like on Discord. You might even like doing GA reviews; it's a good way to engage with other editors in a generally low drama way. You don't have to stop working behind the scenes just because ANI is giving you trouble, it may just be there are places behind the scenes you fit in better than the classic noticeboards :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ ↗ 08:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Finally got around to writing something on this. I agree that there isn't much advice on this, or any when it comes to "ANI clerking". I created WP:ANICLERK ↗ as a user essay. It is short and to the point. There aren't too many editors who make this error thankfully, but there are some (like myself) who try to be helpful and end up making things worse. 11WB (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

AI tag edit filter

I was planning on writing a filter that would log edits that remove :Template:AI-generated ↗, since that would be relatively easy to implement. I see in the discussion you linked to that detection of unwarranted deLLMPRODing was also wanted, but I'm not really sure how to implement that. Are there any signs that could be technically checked for to determine if a dePROD was legitimate or not? I think there already is a filter to stop speedy-deletion tag removals, so that one isn't needed. I could also just write it to log all dePRODs but I think that would have a lot of false positives. InfernoHues (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks, I think logging all dePRODs would be okay, looking at the Pehlivanmeydani case, there's not many that people took on themselves and rewrote, and there were a fair few LOUTSOCKing removals Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 17:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:We've just got to be careful to disengage when running out of patience and not to treat it like a battleground, there's lots of editors who aren't aware of NOLLM Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 17:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yep, of course! I'll give that a go then. InfernoHues (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Just replied to the request with the proposed filter. I don't know the official process going forward either, I think it's just that an edit filter helper/manager adds it if they believe it would be useful. InfernoHues (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Kowal, with your expertise in African history, I wanted to let you know of my FAC nom ↗ that would benefit from a review by you, and I'd appreciate you taking a look. Ty! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:will have a look! Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 23:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
:I'll get to the second one in a bit Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 15:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The DCWC is open!

thumb|upright=1.2|See a {{nowrap|{{legend inline|ffb219}} "developing"}} or {{nowrap|{{legend inline|ff562f}} "least}} developed" country? Write about it to earn points! ↗

Hey Kowal2701, the third annual Developing Countries WikiContest ↗ is now '''open for submissions'''. The coordinators have addressed some of the queries at the last contest and we are hopeful that it'll turn out great! If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions on the talk page ↗.

Got open nominations? List them at the review requests sidebar ↗.

Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles ↗ and eligible reviews ↗.

Not sure if your article qualifies? See the scoring rules ↗ for more information or contact a coordinator ↗.

Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open ↗ throughout the contest, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page ↗ or ask one of the coordinators: {{noping2|Arconning}}, {{noping2|Generalissima}}, {{noping2|Magentic Manifestations}}, {{noping2|sawyer777}}, or {{noping2|TechnoSquirrel69}}. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list ↗. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) —'''TechnoSquirrel69''' ('''talk''') 00:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
{{clear|right}}

"AI-generated" tags - also for translations?

Hi Kowal2701, I happen to have the articles Jorge Eliécer Gaitán Theatre ↗ and National Novel Award (Colombia) ↗ on my Watchlist so I saw that you recently tagged them as possibly having been generated by an LLM. I think it is more likely that they are machine translations of the corresponding articles on Spanish Wikipedia, because the structures are really identical! I'm just coming here to ask: in that case, is the tag still correct? Unfortunately I don't think I will have time to take responsibility for cleaning up either article within the next week! Best, GanzKnusper (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @GanzKnusper, LLM-translations are okay but only if they follow WP:LLMTRANSLATE ↗, I have little faith the editor reviewed these given their conduct elsewhere. If you need more time you can always move them to draftspace or your own userspace and remove the tag? Can also stubbify ↗ them. Sorry, I know it'd be ideal if I stubbified all of these instead of PRODing, but it'd take so much longer and there's a large backlog atm Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 22:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::Makes sense, if there is a backlog then I agree that a PROD is better than nothing. Thanks for the quick reply! GanzKnusper (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Mo'Kalamity

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 3 July 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Mo'Kalamity ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that reggae musician '''Mo'Kalamity ↗''' derives her stage name from American frontierswoman Calamity Jane ↗?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mo'Kalamity ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Mo'Kalamity ↗), 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 ↗.
}} Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated aviation accident and incident article

It caught to my attention that nearly 70 aviation accident and incident article were being PRODed for suspected of being “AI-generated”. While it could be the case, all them I found were having the same structure as other language article. It could be the author using AI to translate the article, in regard to “"AI-generated" tags - also for translations?”

My request: I would like to dePRODed them, and instead, stubbifying them. Additionally, I would try me best paraphrasing/re-writing the article.

Would it be OK? Ohok12 (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Ohok12, that'd be great! The editor in question did do some LLM-generated translations, but they don't appear to have reviewed the output when doing so (WP:LLMTRANSLATE ↗ is the relevant guideline). The biggest issue with LLM-generated content is WP:V ↗ failures/hallucinations, which unfortunately means it takes ages to review (tone issues/WP:AISIGNS ↗ is just how we detect it). Stubbifying or rewriting would be ideal, if you want you can userfy ↗ or draftify ↗ them for the time being if a week is too short? I can also notify WP:AVIATION ↗ to see if anyone fancies helping Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 11:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::Really thank you Ohok12 (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Frank Epperson

@Kowal2701 I saw that you nominated Frank Epperson ↗ to be prodded due to suspect AI-LLM generation. I was the user who accepted that AfC, so I decided to take another look at it. All of the five sources link to the actual, relevant article. However, gptzero had a 56% probability that the article was AI polished. The subject does meet WP:GNG ↗, so I want to see if there is a way to salvage the article (not sure if I'll have the time to do that myself or not). EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @EaglesFan37, the article appears to have been written by an AI agent ↗ so it's very likely LLM-generated (WP:GPTZERO ↗ warns against giving detectors too much credence, tbh I just use WP:AISIGNS ↗ (several appearing simultaneously increases certainty) and maybe also look for WP:V ↗ failures/hallucinated text). Btw don't worry about accepting such an article, tbf I can't see any blatant AI signs, and a significant portion of the articles I LLMPROD went through AfC (not to say that AfC doesn't do a great job at damming the flood, but yeah, it's more for letting notable articles through rather than strict quality control). You could review everything (ie. check the sources and the content match up), but that'd be very time-consuming, most people just stubbify ↗ and review that stub (sometimes they'll rewrite from scratch). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 20:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::@Kowal2701 I'm going to try to fix up the article (won't be able to get all of it done now, but at least enough to salvage it for the time being). EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::@Kowal2701 Would you be able to take a look at the article now? I can tweak it more if needed. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::have you reviewed it for WP:V ↗? (btw you can userfy ↗ articles if the timeframe is too short) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 21:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's all verifiable (I looked at the sources). EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, that's all good then, feel free to remove the tag Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 22:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::My one concern is that edit summaries has it as 79% the other user. I removed 3,000 bytes, rewrote sentences, and cut out sections. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Xtools, not edit summaries EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::There's a look of how it differs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Epperson&diff=1362892401&oldid=1362720274 ↗ EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Don't worry, people always check the edit history (tbh I never check 'percentage written', just look for "significant edits"), if someone (esp. an established user) says it's clean no-one will PROD without good reason (usually if I don't fully trust someone's review I just tag w {{tl|AI-generated}} instead of PRODing). Good work Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 22:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Lozi kingdom ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Lozi kingdom ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Lozi kingdom/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 Jishara -- Jishara (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Lozi kingdom ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Lozi kingdom ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Lozi kingdom/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 Jishara -- Jishara (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Your recent PRODs

Hello, I just rescued One Night ↗, that you had PRODed. Hope it's OK with you.Are you sure you want to PROD Ingert Bjuggren ↗? She's a clearly notable actress. I see that you have mass-prodded a lot of other pages related to films and filmmaking; don't know why you assume all those pages have been AI-generated but it's impossible to rescue them all in 5 days. I am inviting you to Drafitfy the pages instead so that interested users can check them with time. Thank you. ~2026-38593-76 ↗ (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @~2026-38593-76, these are WP:LLMPROD ↗s so notability isn’t the concern unfortunately. These articles were written by {{noping|Artful Historian}} who was blocked for habitual LLM use, I PRODed articles within the time span that they were determined to have used LLMs. If you want to dePROD you need to follow WP:LLMPRVOBJ ↗ and review and rework the article for compliance with WP:PAG ↗s (most importantly WP:V ↗). The reason these are presumptively PRODed is because it would take hours to review all their articles, while it only takes a few minutes to generate them. There may be the odd article that isn't LLM-generated, but we’d need to be reviewing all of them to find that. Editors are allowed to userfy ↗ articles to work on later, but draftifying is problematic since different editors sometimes move them back to mainspace without fixing them. I recommend stubbifying ↗, I’ve been doing this with some I've tagged. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 23:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for your reply and thorough explanation. ~2026-38593-76 ↗ (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Hello, I've rescued Kingdom (2025 TV series) ↗. Not stubbified but checked and reviewed. If I missed something, feel free to remove it! ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::That looks great, thank you :) I’m gonna try and do some stubbifying tomorrow, I was thinking it’d be great to get an organised effort at saving them (like a less toxic WP:ARS ↗), but idk where to suggest it/find people motivated/orientated towards such work Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 23:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:Also, I WP:BLAR ↗ed Ingert Bjuggren ↗ per WP:ATD-R ↗. ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Hello, Chile-Iran relations ↗, that you LLMPRODED, has significant contributions by other (and well-established) editors, so it should not be LLM-prodded (per the notice). Leaving it up to you to self-revert your nomination if you agree. Thanks. ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @~2026-38843-54, which edit do you consider significant? AFAICT there's only https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chile%E2%80%93Iran_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1305033690 ↗ which is removal of some content (I usually consider "significant contributions" to refer to either a large addition relative to the page size, a partial/total rewrite from the sources (ie. cleanup), or other time-intensive edits, as imo that's more in-keeping with the spirit of the guideline, but happy to discuss) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 17:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::I think Geschichte and Libstar's edits show that the page was at least partially reviewed and reworked and consider that a substantial removal of material can be considered significant especially in regard of what LLMPROD is (in particular if one considers that stubbifying is a rough solution to the problem). But I'll remove more and leave it up to you to decide whether or not to remove the tag. ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::we can get a third opinion, @Chaotic Enby wrote the guideline (disclaimer, I've interacted w them a lot, but they won't give favourable treatment). In all honesty I don't have a lot of experience with WP:BANREVERT ↗ and the convention for it (which has similar language and I suspect was the inspiration). No deleting admin's raised any issues with me about my LLMPRODs so far. FWIW I usually consider additions of over 500 bytes significant so long as it's partly prose Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 17:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::If there hasn't been ''addition'' of content, but only curation of AI-generated content, I don't think it exempts the page from LLMPROD, as it doesn't make the rest of the page not AI-generated. The rest are mostly just very superficial copyedits. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity ↗ · talk · contribs ↗) 17:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::1) "as it doesn't make the rest of the page not AI-generated." : not sure what this means (if the sources are checked and the language checked, what's the issue?) 2) "If there hasn't been ''addition'' of content, but only curation of AI-generated content, I don't think it exempts the page from LLMPROD" Well, I strongly disagree with that. ''Significant'' is ''significant'' and if you want to change the wording of the template, go ahead but as of now, it does not say "addition" 2) "The rest are mostly just very superficial copyedits.": In the present case, now, not anymore, no. Can we remove the notice? ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::WP:NOLLM ↗ (of which WP:LLMPROD ↗ is an enforcement mechanism) disallows AI-generated content in general, notably because the rate of creation makes it impractical for human checking otherwise. That someone removed one obvious section doesn't mean they checked any of the other sections.{{pb}}Additionally, WP:LLMPROD ↗ itself states that it applies to {{tq|pages where the editor is the only significant contributor}}. I admit that the wording could be confusing, but in light of the underlying guideline it is enforcing, "contributor" here refers to contributing material. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity ↗ · talk · contribs ↗) 17:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Sorry but I don't think that'd be right. If the page is AI-generated, and someone removes one section of the page, the rest of the page is still AI-generated. AFAICT there's no indication that the article was reviewed against the sources (if there was, then it'd be fine to dePROD). PAGs aren't laws (an essay on this ↗), they mostly just document 'best practice' and one has to consider the spirit of the 'rule'/its purpose. (sorry, published at the same time) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 17:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you; I am not sure what your replies are about 1) the general idea (accepting removals as potentially significant (and I am adamant that they can be but we can agree to disagree; still, if you start considering removals as non-contributions then the whole idea of stubbifying those pages is absurd; but again, never mind) or 2) the current state of Chile–Iran relations ↗, which I thoroughly reviewed, trimmed and improved (it certainly could be better but is that the point?); which leads me to ask again: do you think the notice can be removed now? ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't see you'd reviewed it! Yes, feel free to remove it, apologies Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 17:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Cheers! ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::(In light of my recent edits not because it had been edited by others) ~2026-38843-54 ↗ (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)