W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: M kuhner

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

{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}}

__FORCETOC__
__TOC__

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Natalia Tsodikova ↗ has been accepted


<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:var(--background-color-success-subtle, #dff2eb); padding: 0.5em 1em; color: inherit; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''Natalia Tsodikova ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!'''<br />

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />

The article has been assessed as '''Start-Class''', which is recorded on its talk page ↗. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time ↗. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.

'''Future articles'''
<div class="autoconfirmed-show">
<div class="unconfirmed-show">

'''Next steps'''
Thanks again, and happy editing!
<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">Andy Mabbett</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits ↗</span> 13:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC accept-->
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->

Welcome!


thumb|alt=A plate of chocolate chip cookies.|Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''' ↗ ↗
Hello, M kuhner, and '''''welcome to Wikipedia ↗'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the '''Wikipedia Teahouse ↗'''.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign your name ↗ on talk pages ↗ using four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our '''help pages''' ↗, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!<!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --> <span style="font-family:times new roman"><span style="background-color:purple; color: #7FFFD4">~ŤheŴubṂachine</span>-<span style="color:#339966">840</span><span style="color:red">≈</span></span> ● <small>'''<span style="color:#339966;font-family:times new roman">✒️</span> ↗'''</small> 16:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

A cup of coffee 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;" | For your great work on Hypocnemis ↗ and Warbling antbird ↗. Thank you! RainbowtheDragonCat (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

Edits to fungi articles



I did make a post ↗ at the WikiProject Fungi too, but here's a link to that other TA's contributions that are still current: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-27277-21 ↗

I really appreciate your offer to look it over too! <b style="color:#F35185;">Pikku</b><b style="color:#F9A6C5;">papu</b><b style="color:#FBCADD;">pata</b>&nbsp;<sup>💌&nbsp;🌷 ↗</sup> 15:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:I agree that this is alarming. The user just got blocked for 31 hours, but there might be a need for a sockpuppet investigation here. I will look at it further this evening. M kuhner (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:No, I'm wrong about the block, I confused the two temp accounts. Still suspect they are sockpuppets. I'll try to do a careful job tonight. M kuhner (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:I talked to the admin User:Spencer who blocked the first temp account. He agreed that this looked like sockpuppetry and indef blocked and reverted the second temp account as well. Thank you for bringing this up! If you see this guy again under a new name, I recommend contacting Spencer. (Wouldn't mind a head's-up myself. If Spencer is busy I may try to learn how to start a sockpuppet investigation.) M kuhner (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::Excellent, I will definitely be on the lookout. I've made a couple of sockpuppet reports, so if I see that user/identical edits starting to pop up again, I can put something together as well if needed (and for sure notify both of you). Ideally there won't be any more activity, but we'll see. Thanks again for all of your help! <b style="color:#F35185;">Pikku</b><b style="color:#F9A6C5;">papu</b><b style="color:#FBCADD;">pata</b>&nbsp;<sup>💌&nbsp;🌷 ↗</sup> 23:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey!



Imagine my surprise that a developer of LAMARC happened to stop by an AfD I had been following about a pop geneticist (I see you are also at UW?). I had brought up that so many biologists who were far more influential than that subject, themselves lacked wikipedia pages. My specific example was developers of packages many thousands of biologists use and I was going to mention phyloseq, LAMARC, structure/admixture, etc, but decided against it for lack of common recognition. Funny coincidence! And thank you for all your work!

PS: regarding your mention above of starting a sockpuppet investigation, I started one recently (for the subject of that AfD, actually), feel free to glance ↗ at it. It is very straightforward. Copying the source text of an existing one as a scaffold can be helpful for formatting. Bioconda (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi! Yes, that's me; still at UW but lost my faculty position and now a research consultant in conservation biology. I wasn't expecting that, but the coding skills are still good! M kuhner (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:Here's a technical question that's contributing to my nervousness: I know how to reference a named user, but every time I try to reference a temp account I end up with a non-functioning link. How do you do it? M kuhner (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::I imagine they're quite a bit better than good! But gosh, I am so sorry to hear that. I hope its going as well as can be expected. I work at an org with lots of ties to East Africa and I have followed your ivory work, really encouraging stuff.
::It's possible your link is actually functional, but that the temp does not have a "User Page", as most do not. Some have entries in Talk pages, often people informing them of various violations. Link one here in the way you've been doing, I'll take a gander. Bioconda (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Egyptian hieroglyph U016



Hey!
I saw you put Egyptian hieroglyph U016 ↗ up for delation.
Now I know you saw that I had used an LLM, but I have only used it for two pages—weirdcore aesthetic ↗ and list of internet aesthetics ↗.
I have also not used any LLMs for my previous pages.
The detailed explanation is on my talk page.
And I have understood my mistake, and apologized for it.
I have not used any LLMs to create the page for the hieroglyph, and only tried to keep the language formal.....
Also having a Wikipedia page for a symbol only increases the number of pages on Wikipedia and a bit of knowledge, there is no harm in having a page that seems a bit extra..
So pls understand Bøttle-x (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

:Whatever chance the hieroglyph has to be notable comes from this source:
:{{cite journal |last=Yamamoto |first=Kei |title=Iconography of the Sledge in Ancient Egyptian Funerary Art |journal=Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar |volume=19 |year=2015 |pages=665–674}}
:Unfortunately this is paywalled for me. If you could possibly share a copy, or even a photo of a page from it that shows discussion of U016, it would really help. The other sources can't show notability, they're just lists of hieroglyphs. I'm afraid notability really is required.
:The page I would ''really'' like to see fixed is TOI-5007 b ↗. I'm grateful to you for writing it, because that's a bizarre planet and I enjoyed learning about it. But there are issues--it says the JWST should be used for further studies but the source doesn't say anything about that, for example. If you could check that one carefully it would be great. I have not put it up for deletion, because the sources were real and most of the information seemed accurate.
:As a tip, in the Visual Editor when you put in a citation, there's a tab labeled "Reuse". Whenever you want to use a source more than once, Reuse it rather than pasting the citation in again. If you use the Source editor instead, give the citation a name the first time you use it, and then use the name next time. (I'd show you how, except I have no idea how I can type wiki-code and not have it interpreted, sorry.)
:Best wishes, and I hope to see interesting human-written articles from you in the future! M kuhner (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Bøttle-x just pinging you on this--wasn't sure you saw it. M kuhner (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Kei Yamamoto's 2015 study, Iconography of the Sledge in ancient Egyptian Funerary art, confirms that the Egyptian hieroglyph U016 represents a transport sledge, but it does not support claims of a jackal-headed design or act as a linguistic pun for wns. While the sign is related to mining and the concept of bjꜣ (copper/wonders), the paper focuses on the physical iconography of the sledge on funerary objects in the new kingdom rather than providing a linguistic analysis of the hieroglyph itself.
:::As I had said some of the information was written by myself without any source
:::for the full study, visit Academia.edu. Bøttle-x (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::the reason I wrote some info without a source is because at that time I was oblivious of the fact that you needed to write a source for everything Bøttle-x (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm a working scientist (conservation biology and evolution). I use Wikipedia a LOT. Recently my lab had a big discussion about extinct elephants in Africa, and I used Wikipedia as a source for finding out about them. (We are wondering why African savannah elephants seem to have been rare in the past though they are the more common kind now. Could extinct elephants have been competing with them?) If someone just made up the dates in those extinct elephant articles, or quoted papers that don't exist, it could seriously mess up our science. So I feel very strongly about this.
::::I will just let the AfD for the hieroglyph article run its course. I did strike out the part where I questioned whether one hieroglyph is worth an article, because someone showed me I was wrong.
::::Hope you can learn from this and things will go better in the future. M kuhner (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::maybe you should remove the wrong information?
:::::And keep the rest of the page as it is? Bøttle-x (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::I don't think I'm allowed to remove stuff from the nomination once I put it in. That can be seen as bad behavior. Striking it out shows that I no longer stand behind it.
::::::Can we work on TOI-5007 b ↗? If we could find one article talking about these giant planets right next to tiny stars, I think this article can definitely be saved. M kuhner (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Here's something that's close to useful: doesn't mention TOI-5007 b specifically but a good description of why planets like this are important. https://www.universetoday.com/articles/its-not-supposed-to-be-like-this-a-giant-planet-orbits-a-small-star ↗ Maybe you can find more? M kuhner (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::"It's Not Supposed To Be Like This: A Giant Planet Orbits A Small Star" — explains why giant planets around low-mass stars are important and difficult to explain.
::::::::"The Planet That Shouldn't Exist" — discusses TOI-5205 b, another giant planet orbiting a small red dwarf, and why such systems challenge planet-formation theories.
::::::::These articles can be used as background sources for explaining the significance of TOI-5007 b even if they mention another planet.
::::::::Planets like TOI-5007 b are important because they challenge current theories of how planets form. According to standard models, small stars should have smaller disks of gas and dust around them, making it difficult to form giant Jupiter-like planets. Yet these planets exist. Their existence suggests that astronomers may be missing something about planet formation, disk evolution, or planetary migration. Bøttle-x (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh man. Don't post LLM text. Just don't. I want to work with a human being. M kuhner (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Ugh..... I really don't like when the text I wrote sounds like it's written by an LLM
::::::::::Look.... I used the microphone option to write this, that's why I wrote it so quickly
::::::::::I derived this information from that source, and wrote in my own words..
::::::::::I am an astronomy nerd ,so I like to use formal language and terms when talking about astronomy related topics. Bøttle-x (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Is your "microphone" tapping into an LLM-based system which is modifying your text? People sometimes get burned by this, for example Copilot is integrated into a lot of things. I really do not believe that the response above was written by you, comparing it to what you said just now in your own voice. If you keep posting LLM material to WP you are likely to walk into an indefinite ban. People have used up all their patience with this. M kuhner (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Bøttle-x (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::To type wiki code and have it ignored, use <nowicki> tags. SenshiSun (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:::And spell wiki correctly. SenshiSun (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks! (Though, that "spell correctly" step, that's a tough one. I wrote my PhD thesis on insulin-dependent diabetes and the fact I can't spell "dependent" was a HUGE issue!) M kuhner (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks



Hi, M_kuhner!
I saw your message sugestion for my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansmithh/sandbox
Thank you so much for your feedback! Alansmithh (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
(moved to bottom)

{{ping|Alansmithh}} I'm glad it was helpful! Comments should go at the bottom of Talk pages, just so you know; I moved this one down. M kuhner (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Tip



Go to your preferences ↗, then to the gadgets tab, and check {{tqq|Strike out usernames that have been blocked}}. I'm assuming you don't have this on already because of this edit ↗. fifteen&nbsp;thousand&nbsp;two&nbsp;hundred&nbsp;twenty&nbsp;four ↗&nbsp;(talk) 23:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:You're right. Thanks, that's really helpful. M kuhner (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

AI cleanup



Hi @M kuhner! Thanks for pointing me in the direction of AI cleanup at the Teahouse yesterday. I've gotten a glimpse at this massive undertaking, and I would like to take you up on your offer to help me get started with some tasks, whenever you're available. Purring maggot (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi! A couple questions so I know where you're starting:
:(1) Do you use Source Editor or only Visual? Most maintenance work is easier with Source, and I confess I don't know Visual all that well.
:(2) Have you looked at "diffs"? If not, let's start by looking at some. They are key.
:My current project is the cleanup at {{slink|WP:AI noticeboard|User:Bookisher}}. The cleanup list includes a lot of tiny edits which are ''probably'' innocent but have to be checked, because a large deletion and a large insertion of new text could add up to a tiny change in article length. I figure we could start there, and look at the mechanics of checking a tiny edit, working out if it's innocent, and editing the tracking page.
:M kuhner (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::1. I have few edits, but I feel more comfortable with the Source Editor.
::2. I've viewed some diffs, and I'm familiar with the concept of using them to identify problematic edits, but don't really know how that's done in practice or what I'm specifically looking for.
::Just let me know how to start and I'll give it a go! Purring maggot (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Have a look at the tracking page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-06-22 Bookisher ↗. Partway down there's a run of tiny edits that have not yet been checked, starting at Smyrna and Delaware Bay Railroad. Have a look at 2-3 of those and let me know what you're seeing. In the meantime, I will try using the Source Editor (which I don't normally) to update the tracking page, so I hopefully know what I'm doing!
:::(I'm perhaps overly bold, and do things where I don't know what I'm doing on a daily basis. I've had two such actions reverted with a polite explanation of what went wrong, which emboldens me to continue. You can make a lot of mistakes as long as you don't make the same one over and over.) M kuhner (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Well, I learned something: I think this has to be Source Editor, it's not even offering to let me switch to Visual on that page. M kuhner (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::This bit was easy - from Smyrna and Delaware Bay Railroad to Leona's Sister Gerri there were no LLM edits, just 2-3 internal links added per edit. Purring maggot (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yay! This will be the Newcomer Task "add wikilinks". So all of those are clean. To mark them as clean, edit the page. It will look awful because all those diffs involve quite a lot of text, but this can be ignored. Use your browser's search function to find the line for one of the clean articles (by name). That line will say "status=requested". Change that to "status=unnecessary". Preview to make sure you didn't break the formatting, then commit. I'd do one to get started, then you can do the rest of the articles you looked at as a single edit. If you break the format, you can bail from the edit and do it again.
:::::We can look at a harder one after that. Thanks so much for your help! There were over 200 to start with, so progress is definitely being made.
:::::This editor left a trail of people saying "What the hell is this plot summary, it has nothing to do with the book!" so it's definitely good to get them taken care of. (If you ask LLM to summarize a book whose text is not on the net, of course it can't, so it just makes stuff up.) M kuhner (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Great! I've updated statuses for all of the ones I checked. Purring maggot (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Useful to know: if you want to talk about technical syntax, you can't just type it because it gets interpreted. But if you put it inside <nowiki> <nowiki> </nowiki> </nowiki> tags you can. So without the tags, User:M kuhner but with the tags you can see what I actually typed: <nowiki> User:M kuhner </nowiki>. M kuhner (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I looked at Hard science fiction ↗. What do you think happened there? One of the two Bookisher edits is bigger on this one. M kuhner (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Looks like they added a genre to the "see also" list and then added definitions for all the linked genres there. It seems plausible that they rephrased language from the leads of the linked articles, but at this point are we to presume all their edits of substance are AI-generated? Purring maggot (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I don't feel the need to delete very short snippets of text, since we can seldom tell whether they are LLM or human. One thing I do watch for, which I just saw in The Gone World ↗, is something like {{tq|it is often described as a mind bending thriller}} sourced to a SINGLE review where ONE reviewer says that. It's such a typical LLM mistake, and it is worth removing even if very short. (It's wrong even if a human wrote it, anyway.)
:::I do notice that Bookisher added a link to his article Rationalist fiction ↗ and that article is at Articles for Deletion where it will likely be deleted. If it were already deleted I might take the link out (it would become a redlink) but before deletion, probably not. We have bigger fish to fry.
:::So this one is reasonably clean and can be marked. One more tonight (it's getting late where I am): The Gone World ↗ is a big fish, an article created by Bookisher. Here the question is, looking at the history, does this article have substantial content added by anyone else? Copy-edits, templates, categories, edits by bots don't matter. But if someone added a big chunk of human text, we are not allowed to use LLMPROD, the protocol for rapid removal of LLM articles.
:::Because the consensus at AINB is that all Bookisher articles are LLM, we don't have to try to diagnose that. But it's good practice to have a look at the text. Any red flags? The article WP:AISIGNS ↗ may be helpful.
:::M kuhner (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::It looks like every edit at The Gone World after Bookisher is just little stuff like categories and infobox. Nothing of substance added, so I suppose this one can be deleted. Purring maggot (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I agree with that conclusion. Are you feeling bold tonight? Here's how to mark an article for deletion (neither of us has authority to delete it ourselves):
:::::(1) On the tracking page is a chunk of text labeled "LLMPROD template". It has a copy button (upper right, at least in my view). That text is to be copied and inserted into the Gone World article at the top. This flags the article for deletion. After a waiting period of 5 days, an admin will review the case and decide whether to delete it. Or any user can remove the tag, in which case, either that user gets to fix the article, or we take it to Articles for Deletion.
:::::(2) Once the template is added, copy the "Edit Summary" on the tracking page and paste that in as your edit summary. Preview the edit to make sure nothing is broken.
:::::(3) Once you publish the edit, a big notice will appear at the top of the article that's being LLMPRODed. It is kind, but not required, to copy the text at the bottom of that notice, where it says "Nominator: Please consider notifying the author if active", onto the Talk page of the author (Bookisher). However we've done several already, Bookisher hasn't edited in months, I think they are adequately warned. I'd always do this for the first article LLMPRODed for any given editor, though; and for all of them, if the author is actively fighting over the issue.
:::::You can look at The Tyrant Philosophers ↗ for what this will look like when complete.
:::::(4) On the tracking page, mark the article's status as "ongoing" and at the very end of the status line add "LLMPROD" ''before'' the last two curly braces. This one is peculiarly easy to get wrong and will break the whole table, so preview before publishing! If you do break it, go into the history, find your edit and hit "undo".
:::::"Ongoing" is used here because we can't be sure the problem is solved until the article is actually deleted. If the editor who wrote them is not blocked and is actively fighting them, the LLMPROD notices will usually get removed before the 5 days are over. My next stop in that case would be to ask an admin to review the LLM evidence and block the user.
:::::I didn't ask for a block on Bookisher because they haven't edited in months and blocks are usually refused in that case; they are only given to halt ongoing problems.
:::::Another possibility is that a new temp account appears and removes the LLMPROD notices. In that case it's probably AfD time, because blocking temp accounts is not very useful. In a really bad case we take it to WP:SPI ↗, the sockpuppet investigators.
:::::I'm calling it a night! Talk to you later. Feel free to leave this article as it is if you'd rather have more interaction. M kuhner (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Done! Good night, thank you for all the tips and instructions so far! Purring maggot (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Ah, and since you asked for red flags: The statement "It has been cited as one of the best science fiction thrillers for its ability to maintain tension across multiple timelines." is cited to a top-10 listicle that only contains a short plot summary. I'll definitely have to hone my skills at recognizing this stuff! Purring maggot (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yup, that's a red flag. I think mismatch between source and text is one of the best signs of LLM, as it's hard for the editor to quickly patch up. They can take out the excessive boldface and the bullet lists and whatnot, but source/text consistency is hard work.
:::::Good night! M kuhner (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Ah, one last thing: good idea to read the policy that lets us do this, which is WP:LLMPROD ↗. I used "consensus at AINB" to justify this cleanup, though "inactive" might also have worked. M kuhner (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Gone World has a rather frightful edit summary (for the edit where he moved it from draftspace to mainspace): {{tq|Bookisher moved page Draft:The Gone World to The Gone World: Move to mainspace: MTM meets WP:NBK (Criterion 1) through widespread critical acclaim in reliable, independent outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and Kirkus Reviews.}}. Who puts puffery in their ''edit statement''? And, what is WP:NBK? Wikipedia search doesn't know. LLMs that know they are writing for Wikipedia like to make up Wikipedia policies! This edit summary is a smoking gun for LLM use. M kuhner (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Next topic is what to do when there ''are'' substantial contributions by other editors. The Captive's War ↗ is an example. You can place the template <nowiki> {{AI-generated|date=June 2026}} </nowiki> on the article to indicate that it's suspected of LLM use, and write something on the Talk page as I did at Captive's War to try to enlist editors to help. (Fixing these is an ENORMOUS project: I've done three or four and would only do it again for an article I really cared about.) If you aren't comfortable with that, put a note in the tracking like "needs attention" and I can help.

It's very useful to be able to point people to the AINB report: {{slink|WP:AINB#User:Bookisher}}. Code for this is <nowiki> {{slink|WP:AINB#User:Bookisher}} </nowiki>. "Slink" is "section link" so this points people to the actual case, not just to the main AINB page which is far too big. It is also helpful to provide a link to the guideline forbidding most LLM use, which is <nowiki> WP:NOLLM ↗ </nowiki>. This guideline changed in March 2026, so many people are legitimately not aware of it.

All of the things inside <nowiki> {{ }} </nowiki> are templates. To get info on any template that puzzles you, search on Template:Name of template.

So, at your convenience you can look at other entries on the tracking list, deal with what you can, and come back here if you run into something you're not sure about. M kuhner (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

:I've reviewed some more articles on the list and LLMPRODed a few that fit the established pattern.
:Some different situations I could use some advice on:
:Architectural illustration ↗ - definitely not a LLMPROD because the article already existed, but the most substantial Bookisher edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Architectural_illustration&diff=next&oldid=1329201017 ↗ has multiple typos and otherwise just reads much more human than their generated articles. Cleanup unnecessary?
:Memory's Legion ↗ - no substantial contributions per se, but editor Tainmere who was participating in cleanup at The Captive's War ↗ seems to have spent a good deal of time ''removing'' AI-generated content in this article. Should we notify that editor in case they're interested in continuing to work on it, or can we assume any interested editors will simply take off the LLMPROD?
:New Horizons ↗ - Sanity check, Bookisher reverted all their own edits here, right? I think there's reversions of reversions so I can't tell what I'm looking at. Purring maggot (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hm.
::In Architectural illustration ↗ I agree the text is more human, with double periods, a missing word, etc. However I am concerned about the sourcing. One source, added last December, is 404. Another has date accessed 10 years before the page was written. A third points at an article with a totally different name. The Ferriss article has an author prominently on it, but not listed in the citation (incomplete citations are a red flag). The match between the two 99% Invisible articles and the claims they support is rather loose, though maybe okay. I think the text is human, but I think the sources are at least in part unchecked LLM (the two 99% may be human, editor is a fan of that site). I also really don't like that the edit summary says "removed vague descriptions" but nothing was removed in this edit at all. Three sourcing errors in 6 newly added sources is a lot for an article this recent. I'd take this edit out.
::If one wasn't sure, looking for the wrong-name article in Wayback Machine to see if it was at that url sometime in the past would be a good next step. If it never was, that's a red flag.
::In Memory's Legion ↗ I would not prod if someone is actively working on it, even if that's mostly deletion. I'd put an AI generated flag on it and mention why on the talk page. We want to encourage people like Tainmere, they are heroes.
::I have NO IDEA what happened on New Horizons ↗. I can't make things add up. I am going to ask a more experienced editor for help. It does not look like Bookisher's last edit was reverted--by them or anyone else--but I can't make what's shown in the diff line up with that revision of the article. And it is unlikely anything close to a clean revert could be done on such a popular article. If we could figure out which section(s) are most worrying, we could put a sectional LLM warning tag on just those. I'm reluctant to put one on the whole huge article--it's not helpful.
::I'm going to post on AINB for someone else to look at this one. M kuhner (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Got an awesome explanation from fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four at {{slink|WP:AINB#User:Bookisher}}. This one is clean, he really did self-revert everything. And I'm going to try installing the script mentioned there. Check it out! M kuhner (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Who Wrote That? is very cool. It takes a long time to load on a page like New Horizons, though. Sure glad we don't have to try to unpick that one. M kuhner (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Definitely going to install that, it will probably be very helpful on some of the more mixed-up articles.
:::::RE: the sourcing errors, I've definitely noticed a bunch of the smaller changes seem to be adding references that may or may not exist. Wish they would stick to generating text so I didn't have to check all of these, LOL Purring maggot (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
There is an interesting, if distressing, case at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ titled "Gnomingstuff – Improper removal of properly sourced content based on false LLM assumption" where the person who tagged the LLM text had a complaint raised against them. Worth looking at, because this will likely happen to you or me eventually, and it also illustrates some forms of evidence for LLM use. What I find distressing is that I don't think we were actually talking to a human being in this conversation at all; presumably the editor wanted a different outcome than they got, but the tool turned in their hands. Sorry for not giving section link, it's somehow defeating my linking skills due to being a subpage of a subpage. M kuhner (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy ending on The Captive's War ↗--local editors got together and stripped the bad text, and will rebuild. Gladdens my heart. M kuhner (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:That's great news! It seems like we have done most of the easy stuff and most of what remains are existing articles where Bookisher has added content, and in many cases people have edited after them... Any particular tips on cleaning up articles like that? I imagine checking any references they've added is the most important thing. I've run into a simply unbelievable number of 404 links. Purring maggot (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::Sometimes things can be hand-stripped (undo seldom works on the complex cases) but sometimes it may be best to tag as LLM-edited and put a Talk page message. In a previous case we got all but one article, and the last one defeated us. Too many of the sources were in Russian, and machine translation can spot obvious impossibility of a source but is no good for fine details.
::I agree that checking references is best. A little LLM text that doesn't say anything false can be lived with, but dead or invalid sources should really be pulled.
::Bookisher liked to add whole sections: that's been nice. Their smaller edits are often wikilinks or formatting, which we can leave alone.
::I am looking at the Vayro.7 case, trying to build some evidence. If you get stuck on an article, ping me. It is too hot here to budge from the one cool room, so I'm likely to be online.... M kuhner (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Next steps for current case



Hey User:Purring maggot I just had an edit conflict and it was you! How about if I start at the bottom and you start at the top?

I kind of bounced off of Pic-Pic ↗. Not sure how much problem text is left. Too hot to think hard. M kuhner (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:Oops! OK, I'll work from the top. I felt the same about Pic-Pic - I thought about maybe just removing any nonsensical references and tagging the section as potentially AI-generated? The previous History section was totally unsourced so it didn't feel right to restore that. Purring maggot (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yeah, this is so sad because I am 100% sure Bookisher thought they were being helpful.
::I like your Pic-Pic solution--would you mind doing that one? I just flubbed one badly enough I had to back it all out--hope no one was watching!
::M kuhner (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Done! That's probably the last one for me tonight. We're making good progress. Purring maggot (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, it's coming right along with three people working on it. Need to pick a next one. Unfortunately there is no shortage of candidates. I've been trying to work away at {{slink|WP:AINB#User:Michelle904}} (I said Michelle409 the first time, sorry, I am really overheated) but they are old enough that they're often quite tangly, so progress is slow. Are there any you fancy? M kuhner (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Well, I took a look around and Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/2026-06-05_Rizalninoynapoleon ↗ this case seems to need a lot of work, so I'll probably jump in on this soon enough. Purring maggot (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, that's an option. No full articles, just lots of fiddly edits. I'll see if I can finish Michelle904 and then join you. M kuhner (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Hey {{ping|Purring maggot}} Bookisher is DONE! Yay us (and other helpers)! I think it should not be closed until all the LLMPRODs have been resolved, so that we can make sure they actually are: then if you like you can learn to do "non-admin closure" on a case (not hard, but mildly scary--at least I find it so). Doing formal closes helps completed cases get archived, making it easier to see the uncompleted ones.

For the Michelle904 edits, which are somewhat older and can almost never be undone with a button click, I'm finding that a good workflow is to have the article open with Who Wrote That in one window, and open for editing in a different one. Both Michelle409 and to a lesser extent Bookisher tended to add whole paragraphs, and they are fairly easy to spot and remove this way. Much better than what I was doing previously, which was going cross-eyed looking at diffs. M kuhner (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Purring maggot, would you like to do the honors on Bookisher tomorrow? I think the last LLMPRODs should have resolved by then; all the remaining unclosed articles have been handed over to local editors and I think are in good hands. (Well, not 100% sure about Pic-Pic ↗. I wrote to the person who did the most non-Bookisher edits, but haven't yet heard back.)
:Non-admin closure template: put the first one just after the section header, and the second one just after the last line in the section.
:<nowiki>{{Archive top|status=XXX|result=YYY {{subst:Nac}} ~~~~}}</nowiki>
:<nowiki>{{Archive bottom}}</nowiki>
:XXX is a statement of what happened--often, what happened to the editor, but in this case nothing has as far as I know, they're just inactive. Here it might just say Resolved. YYY is often something like "Cleanup complete." It looks better if it ends with a period. The Nac template marks it as a non-admin close.
:Do not forget the archive bottom or you'll close everything in sight...though it won't be archived for days, so nothing actually bad will happen. It's just embarrassing to turn the entire noticeboard purple.
:M kuhner (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::Sure, I'll pop in tomorrow and make sure it's all clear! Thanks again for all the tips. I haven't been able to contribute much over the past week-ish but planning to jump back in this weekend. Purring maggot (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm working my way through Jgellatly, who after wriggling off the hook on LLM complaints, sockpuppet complaints, and COI complaints, finally got blocked for promotional editing. He inserted roughly the same material, but LLM-customized to pretend to belong, into 60-ish articles on computer security: the computer security WikiProject is helping dig this out. I must say, if you see just one of these it looks plausible, but once you've seen 20, not so much. M kuhner (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I gave up and rewrote the offending section of Pic-Pic ↗ (and boy, the sourcing was bad!) There's one outstanding LLMPROD for some reason, and one or two where we just tagged, but I think it can be considered done. Wow, these really showed just how bad that good sounding LLM text can be. M kuhner (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Alright, that last LLMPROD went through and Bookisher is totally wrapped up! Because of work, reading loads of text is scrambling my brain right now, but tomorrow I'll probably dig into some cases. Purring maggot (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Hurrah!
:::::I'm trying to fix a figure for my boss right now, and the main database is corrupted--I don't know how long that's been the case and I am totally stressing out. If I let myself near PROD right now I'd delete the world....
:::::Once I recover my equilibrium I need to start a bunch of tracking pages, alas. M kuhner (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Date limited contribution lists



Re this request ↗. A reply there is likely to take a while so in the meantime, CCI ↗'s contribution surveyor ↗ can generate date limited lists of contributions by a user (set dates, uncheck minor edits, set bytes to -999999), the output can be formatted via regex ↗ into an {{tl|AIC article list}}. If you want an uncurated but formatted list like this but aren't sure how just ping me with a username, date range, and where you want me to leave it.

A heads up though, if by large case you mean thousands of edits then the template formatting is likely to not work due to template limits ↗ (for example, 2025-12-14 Kofi Meija ↗ was too large and uses the simpler format output from contribution surveyor). fifteen&nbsp;thousand&nbsp;two&nbsp;hundred&nbsp;twenty&nbsp;four ↗&nbsp;(talk) 04:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:It's a bit over a thousand. Seems to be working. Thanks for the tip on trimming it down! M kuhner (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Mordey Article cleanup



Re William Morris Mordey ↗

Hello @M kuhner I couldn't leave it so I've gone though systematically and removed 'bulk' info I don't think intrinsically relevant. it was hard to do this probably because I've got so interested in the subject matter I think its all relevant.

Ive removed the power station 'lists' entirely and opted for a short paragraph. I've removed some sections entirely and shrunk others down or removed entrances that do nothing but pad. As you recommend this is my first pass. next will be to reword If needed how the article and words flow.

Thanks again Mordzy (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

:I am having a work crisis so may not get to this for a few days--just wanted to let you know. M kuhner (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::Roger that. I have some time this afternoon to re-read and change the wording to flow better. I have left it for a week so I can return to it with fresh eyes. Mordzy (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Giant House Spider



I have gone over the paper and understand the morphological differences, very subtle you need a microscope, and why their argument of species vs genetic drift is valid. Several papers cite their work and back up their claims. I have those tabs opened and can reference them...lol

So now what? I am super new to this. Austinious (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

:Wikipedia likes to have one page for every species, but right now we are struggling to do that with these, because all we know is that they are different species. So the three pages would be identical...not satisfying. Is there any information on location of the three species? Did they all get to the US from Europe or are some still only in Europe? (I have giant house spiders in my house in the western US--but of course I have no idea which species they are.)
:Also, for the information given in Giant house spider ↗ itself, is there any way to know which species it applies to, or if it applies equally to all three?
:Has anyone suggested common names for the new species, or are they all still "giant house spider"?
:This information may not exist yet, of course; I think the split is quite recent. But anything we can find would be great. I am hoping to make the three articles soon (and would be happy to work with you to do that) if only we can find something to say so they won't be identical.
:If you find papers other than the one already mentioned in the article, you could put links to them on the Talk page so that everyone interested in these pages can have a look. The easiest way to do it is copy the URL and put square brackets around it (in the Source Editor).
:My current idea is to keep Giant house spider ↗ and have it link to the individual species articles. I think that will be most useful since anyone curious about the animal is unlikely to know which species they have. (My local newspaper runs an article on these every year, when the males come out to mate and scare people--I expect a lot of people then look them up on Wikipedia!)
:Thanks for your help! Maybe we can collaborate on making the species articles--that would be a great way for you to learn the basics. M kuhner (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::I can dig up data on the three species and their ranges and any changes in habits. I would love to collaborate. Is there a way to create the three articles and edit them with out publishing them?
::It will take a few days to find everything, even though this is recent I've seen more than a few articles about this. As far as behavior and range, it is very common that related species have virtually identical behaviors and prey choices. I imagine creating a base article and then finding differences and references.
::Common names are largely taken with a huge grain of salt in the science. There are over 30,000 species for what we call scarabs. Austinious (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, we can create the articles as drafts ("in draftspace" is the jargon) and then publish them once we're satisfied--almost always the right way to do it. Since there are no apparent common names, the article names would be the species names. You could do this once we've collected the info, using the New Article Wizard. If you create them, since you are brand-new here they will have to go through Articles for Creation for approval, but that's not a bad thing anyway.
:::An example of a short but complete species article would be Hypocnemis flavescens ↗. We won't have as much info as this (birds get more attention than spiders) but it shows the kinds of things that are wanted. Definitely a section on how the species were defined--that's probably the same in all three articles. For now, don't worry about the "infobox" (the boxed section on the left)--much of that is likely to be filled in automatically.
:::I can look at this tonight or tomorrow, if my current real-work project doesn't blow up in my face. (Which it may, alas.)
:::M kuhner (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::No stress, I'll work on this tomorrow, create some notes in google docs. There are two of the three needed species pages, but very undeveloped. I'll look over the bird example and start putting things together. Austinious (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Ah, we have pages to work with already! That wasn't the case last time I looked. That will help.
:::::I don't suppose we'll ever know what species the pictures on Giant house spider ↗ really are. We may want to adjust the captions to clarify that. M kuhner (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Hm. Have now read the two new pages, and the E. saeva page concerns me: several facts about this species are cited to a page about E. duellica. I can't access that page (maybe you can?) but it doesn't sound likely.
::::::The main page Giant house spider ↗ needs work because it is using the E. atrica name repeatedly for information probably shared by all three. M kuhner (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Also will want to look at Eratigena ↗ which treats these as a single species. M kuhner (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I have learned how the infobox for a species works: it's Template:speciesbox/doc ↗. I suggest that next time we're both available, we create a basic article for E. atrica, with a speciesbox and some basic facts. I wish there was a picture that we knew was E. atrica strict sense. (I found that two of the images at the bottom of Giant house spider ↗ had image files claiming they were E. duellica! That could be useful.) <span style="color:purple;">'''M kuhner'''</span> (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse closures



Hi M kuhner. I discussed it a bit in an edit summary, but I figured a fuller explanation would be better. I would generally recommend against closing discussions on the Teahouse, especially when they are so close to archiving on their own (as functionally all this does is prolong their lifespan on the main Teahouse page). The Teahouse isn't like ANI or other conduct noticeboards, where closures are needed to state the result of a large thread. Teahouse threads are generally smaller and more manageable. IMO, there is broadly speaking one reason to close (or hat) a thread at the Teahouse, and that is to pressure others to stop replying at it. This can be the case if a conversation isn't productive (though I would urge you to be cautious about applying this rationale) or threads created by socks. Closing threads as resolved doesn't make much sense IMO since it denies the ability for the OP or other new editors to ask questions using that thread. Best, 45dogs <small> (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗</small> 02:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Okay, I'm sorry for any disruption, and will refrain from doing this in the future. My reasoning was that the page was getting rather huge and directing attention to open questions might be helpful, but your argument makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. M kuhner (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Letting threads naturally archive is generally quicker to reduce size. Since closing produces a signature, it resets the archiving clock on that thread to 72h. If a thread is unproductive though and keeps getting replied to (preventing it from naturally ending via automatic archiving), then a closure can be helpful. 45dogs <small> (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗</small> 02:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks, that's clear.
:::While I have your attention, are you able to use TAIV to see if ~2026-36771-82 is likely to be LTA/CB885? I am finding the combination of claiming to be brand new, claiming to be young, and filing at AN to be surprising, and "I'm new" is something this LTA apparently says a lot. M kuhner (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Perhaps Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicleBooks885#07 July 2026 ↗ will answer that. 45dogs <small> (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗</small> 03:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I can't say much of anything in regards to specifics that would be helpful due to policy ↗, but ~2026-36771-82's IP holds several similarities to previous TAs used by CB885. 45dogs <small> (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) ↗</small> 03:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you.
::::::I'm sorry for not hunting that down myself, but I find SPI peculiarly hard to search. Anyway, glad to know it's being appropriately dealt with. M kuhner (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

possible unintentional plain text in your signature?



"M kuhner" does not have a link to your user page, it's confusing for me, but if that's intentional, that's fine &#126;2026-38678-64 ↗ (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:My HTML is rudimentary....This is legal (as it does have a link to the talk page) but if you can show me how to get the other link in too, I'll change it! Thanks. <span style="color:purple;">'''M kuhner'''</span> (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::i think know how to do that, could you please give me your signature code by copy pasting it? (i'm a AGFWWRUP ↗ member so i don't know a lot about signature, but i do know a bit about HTML and stuff) &#126;2026-38678-64 ↗ (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::actually,
:::<nowiki> <b style="color:purple">M kuhner</b></nowiki> (<nowiki>talk</nowiki>)
:::should work (generously donated(i "stealed" it) by Ritchie333 ) &#126;2026-38678-64 ↗ (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Trial response to see how that looks-- <b style="color:purple">M kuhner</b> (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Breaks the talk link, which is more important than the user page link, I think. <b style="color:purple">M kuhner</b> (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Which is very weird, because <nowiki> User talk:M kuhner </nowiki> ''does'' work! Hm. <b style="color:purple">M kuhner</b> (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Typed in directly, I mean. If I type that into the search bar, I get my talk page. But there is no link in your suggested sig. <b style="color:purple">M kuhner</b> (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Trying again-- (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Argh! User talk:M kuhner 22:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::maybe try using the sig on sandbox ''instead'' of on your user page? &#126;2026-38678-64 ↗ (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::for my code that i sent above atleast, because (talk) links won't work on your own usertalk page per WP:SIGLINK ↗ because "When you insert your signature on your talk page or user page, a link to that page will appear black, bold and inactive, so test your signature elsewhere, such as the sandbox." &#126;2026-38678-64 ↗ (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Got it. The revert works in the sandbox; I'll try your original there. <span style="color:purple;">'''M kuhner'''</span> (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Trying to revert-- <span style="color:purple;">'''M kuhner'''</span> (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
All right! It's working (everywhere but here, and evidently that can't be fixed). Thank you very much for your help. I will now be both conspicuously purple and fully accessible, and I appreciate it. <b style="color:purple">M kuhner</b> (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:have fun! (did you know that WP:OMG ↗ is a valid shortcut by the way?) &#126;2026-38678-64 ↗ (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you



Thanks for helping out! I was at a camp for my school classes. I am still busy, but I may be able to edit here and there. <span style="color:white;background:purple;"><b>Tornado</b></span><span style="color:white;background:green;"><b>Elliott</b></span> (<i><b><small>Yelp for help?</small></b></i>) 23:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:You're very welcome. Asking for help was a good decision. (Good luck with the legal boilerplate lady, though.) <b style="color:purple">M kuhner</b> (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)