User talk:Ballardy

Hi Ballardy, I see you've been making some changes to your user page. One of the automatic filters bots has flagged your account for administrator attention because lots of these changes were made in rapid succession - i.e. several edits per minute for several minutes, which is one of the signs of a compromised account.

I don't believe your account is compromised but please exercise caution when making lots of small tweaks like this. A handy tip is, instead of hitting the "Publish changes" button, there's a "Review your changes" button that lets you see a preview of what the page will look like without actually saving it. That way you can keep making small tweaks and only save the page when you're happy with it.

Hope that helps, WaggersTALK 11:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It was accidental, I am not compromised, I promise. Please do not sanction me. Thank you Ballardy Talk Page 15:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Mental Health Procedures Act. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I wrote it, to be it clear. Not machine-generated. Ballardy Talk Page 04:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Each of your references in Draft:Mental Health Procedures Act ends with "utm_source=chatgpt.com", which sure makes it seem like you used ChatGPT to help you write the draft. GoingBatty (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I wrote it. GPT was asked to add citations. Perhaps when pasted that did not transpose properly. Regardless, I highly encourage Wikipedia to be open-minded about emerging technologies like AI and be up-to-date with the times by being open to the prospect of allowing otherwise factually supported information to be allowable where generated by AI and then edited as necessary by humans. If Wikipedia adopts an antagonistic approach to AI, it will inevitably someday change tack once AI progresses further enough. I am suggesting it merely catch on to this sooner rather than later. Despite all of that, though, what is supposed to matter is neutrality, accuracy, and the sources of an article. Those are the salient parts. Ballardy Talk Page 13:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That AI may hallucinate is not sufficient to invalidate all of its work absent actual hallucination in a given instance, if the AI content is sourced fully and reliably as confirmed by a human editor. Ballardy Talk Page 13:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The WP:NOLLM guideline prohibits you from using an LLM to generate content on English Wikipedia. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I realize that, just was inveighing against it. Ballardy Talk Page 14:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think if the California commitment statute gets a page then the MHPA should as well. Ballardy Talk Page 04:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, the MHPA appears to meet the criteria for notability and a well-sourced article should be published once finished. Ballardy Talk Page 16:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, nobody has suggested otherwise. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to encourage you to read WP:BLUDGEON, and to just post less on talk pages in general. You've made over 100 edits to Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models in 24 hours, and it is excessive and disrespectful of other's time. You also keep creating new talk page sections which get hatted for wasting other's time, then create even more which also get hatted. I think you're up to 2 now. This is starting to get into disruptive editing territory and if you continue it, I predict this will end up at WP:ANI. The better way to dispute something on Wikipedia is to post a talk page section, then let it simmer and see if others agree with it, rather than replying to everybody excessively in defense of your point. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have tried to edit articles but most of the time that I do it is reverted without explanation. I will not give up on my mission to help build the encyclopedia, but I think you can understand why my focus lately has been more towards discussing Wikipedia policy and helping in those inquiries than attempting to make edits to articles that I feel will just be reverted. I am still committed, though, and hope that other editors will be receptive to my edits, as they are always quality and thoughtful. In any case, I don’t want to argue over whether I was bludgeoning or not and so I’m not going to go there. I do not accept the characterization. But I think your coming to my talk page to accuse me of bludgeoning and demanding me to give an account of myself does not help the situation and seeks to escalate things when I would just ask that we drop this. You essentially came here to scold me and tell me that you predict that I’m going to be banned. That was not needed. My attempts at discussing the AI guidelines in the talk page are over, as it is clear that Wikipedia is in favor of the policy that I have advocated against—-and I accept that. I would just like to move on and ask that you not WP:Hound and just let it be. Ballardy Talk Page 05:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm coming to your page in good faith to ask you to adjust your behavior before it crosses to the point where restrictions and blocks are needed. Unfortunately, I do not accept the characterization is not a good sign. You don't seem to be accepting any responsibility for your actions. For someone that's a newer editor, you don't seem to be particularly open to feedback, which surprises me a little. Being a newer editor is a good time to be a sponge and to "learn the ropes": to learn our culture and norms (which are all in place for a reason, i.e. institutional memory of hard-learned lessons), and to learn the nuances of all these policies and guidelines we've written up. Experienced editors are here to help you with this, and are great folks to learn from. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

What exactly have I done wrong here? If you believe I am too active on talk pages, then yes, I will accept that, and it is a fair characterization of the last 36 hours or so. But as I have indicated, I have no intention of “bludgeoning” any further on any talk pages. I was not trying to bludgeon the AI-policy talk page in the first place, and only wanted a discussion of the matter. Regardless, I am not interested in seeking further discussion of that subject in light of your comments. I am here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and will continue my work to improve articles, hoping that they are not reverted. I accept your advice and have it well in mind. I think we can leave it at that. Ballardy Talk Page 05:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for chatting with me about this. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:ANI § Ballardy

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I do appreciate your giving me notice. It seems the matter is out of my hands. What is to be, will be. Ballardy Talk Page 16:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ballardy, while I obviously can't attest to what others believe, from the conversation, I don't actually think any kind of sanction is likely here. The purpose of ANI isn't to seek punishments for people, but to discuss conduct issues and try to get everyone involved in an issue back on track and editing constructively. Long conversations on controversial issues, that aren't geared towards any plausible change in policy and bludgeoning conversations are two things that are looked down upon here.

As a side note, LLMs are a very sensitive topic on Wikipedia, because of the great damage that has been done to this encyclopedia by bad actors using LLMs. Cleaning up garbage now takes up a great deal of time of Wikipedia editors that it didn't take up three or four years ago, and this makes improving the encyclopedia elsewhere a slower process.

Yes, LLMs may have their usage in society at large, but the basic thesis of English Wikipedia is that all content is edited by humans. It doesn't matter how big and popular LLMs get. Just like the Indian restaurant near your house may not want to serve cheeseburgers or pizza, no matter how popular those items are, we're simply not interested in creating an LLM encyclopedia. Given the current opinions on LLM use, an LLM-driven Wikipedia would likely be abandoned by its editor base very quickly, and within months became no more useful than Grokipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)