User talk:Bimple

A tag has been placed on Susie Milani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Dave Sharp (bass guitarist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Florganoleptic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Florganoleptic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florganoleptic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Citing (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bimple,

I have moved Draft:Bimple to Draft:The Brain That Wouldn't Die (musical) because that is the actual name.

Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you! I edited that version you created and submitted it Bimple (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The template at the top still needs to be there. Do you want to submit the draft for review? Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 22:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't need duplicates of drafts, the redirect at Draft:Bimple is enough. Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 22:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Timothy Henning. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and unreliable sources. I have converted your article 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you @BoyTheKingCanDance for reviewing the draft of the Timothy Henning article and for your constructive feedback. I’ve made several updates based on your suggestions: Increased Notability: Added more reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Included additional details on Timothy Henning’s significant contributions and notable productions. Addressed Unreliable Sources: Removed unreliable sources and replaced them with credible references. Ensured all sources are reputable and relevant. Draft Updates: Integrated the new references and citations. Revised the content to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and verifiability. I’ve also added relevant WikiProject tags as advised. I believe these changes have improved the draft and addressed the issues raised. Please let me know if there are any further adjustments needed. Thank you for your time and assistance! Bimple (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Thank you @BoyTheKingCanDance for reviewing the draft of the Timothy Henning article and for your constructive feedback. I’ve made several updates based on your suggestions: Increased Notability: Added more reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Included additional details on Timothy Henning’s significant contributions and notable productions. Addressed Unreliable Sources: Removed unreliable sources and replaced them with credible references. Ensured all sources are reputable and relevant. Draft Updates: Integrated the new references and citations. Revised the content to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and verifiability. I’ve also added relevant WikiProject tags as advised. I believe these changes have improved the draft and addressed the issues raised. Please let me know if there are any further adjustments needed. Thank you for your time and assistance! Bimple (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Brain That Wouldn't Die! (The Musical), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Downfall and Horror. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to The Brain That Wouldn't Die! (The Musical). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bimple. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Timothy Henning, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bimple. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Brain That Wouldn't Die!, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bimple. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Timothy Henning".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bimple. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Brain That Wouldn't Die!".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sarsenet. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not use any AI to help me draft my deletion request if thats what you mean. I made no "edits" to anything, I simply posted to the discussion page for deletion Bimple (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Your comments at User_talk:Bimple#Timothy Henning moved to draftspace and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam the Woo read as generated by AI to me. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 18:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Do not gut an article while it is at AFD. Your edit broke a lot of things and was disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added maintenance templates ({{Multiple issues}}, {{Notability}}, {{Primary sources}}, {{Original research}}) and {{cn}} tags earlier to highlight unresolved notability and sourcing concerns. My intent was only to flag structural issues in line with Wikipedia policy (WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:OR) and not to change content or influence the deletion discussion. I understand that major edits are not allowed while the article is at AfD, so I will leave the page as-is while the discussion proceeds. Bimple (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

While it's okay to flag uncited material, it's good practice to actually read the cited source to ascertain if a tag is necessary in the first place. StonyBrook _babble 01:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for the reminder. I did review the cited material where present; the tags were added in cases where statements were unsourced, relied on primary/self-published sources, or where the existing citations did not clearly support the claims being made. The intent was to flag verification gaps for later review, not to prejudge content.Bimple (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You flagged the statement of 4,000 videos when it was clearly sourced to the LA Times in the article, in contradiction to your above claim. Please be more careful in the future. StonyBrook _babble 08:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see your point — I flagged that statement to highlight structural verification issues, not to dispute the LA Times source.Bimple (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of 'citation needed' tags is solely for alerting users that sources are lacking for statements in the article - not for 'structural' issues where good sources exist already. If you think the prose is off, just fix it, as you have done. StonyBrook _babble 08:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Understood. I won’t use [citation needed] tags for structural or prose-related concerns where reliable sources are already present.Bimple (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• You probably want to stay away from maintenance tags until you have a better understanding of how they are used. Improper tagging actually puts a burden on those who monitor those tags, causing them to have to come back after you and fix your mistakes. If you constantly mistag things, it can get you blocked for disruptive editing. Best to stick with what you understand, and don't overestimate what you do understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand the concern. I’ll be more selective with maintenance tagging going forward and will avoid adding tags unless I’m confident they’re warranted.Bimple (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Bimple, I noticed you marked this edit as minor. Just a reminder that this should only be done for things which no one would need to waste their time checking because it was something like a simple spelling correction. It should not be used for times when new text is being introduced, as in this case. In addition, please make it a habit to use the 'preview' button to carefully go over your own work for things like broken references before you publish, so that others won't have to go back and fix things. Thank you. StonyBrook _babble 05:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Noted — substantive edit; the “minor edit” box was accidentally checked and couldn’t be changed once submitted.Bimple (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed the reference details from all the ref names, thereby disabling all of them. I fixed them now, but please be mindful of this mistake in the future. Please don't add any more YouTubes to Adam the Woo, or the article will become degraded by having too many primary references. 25% of the references being YouTube is simply too much. I am also finding that you are not accurately transposing article titles, and sometimes including a source that doesn't back up the article content; for example, the obituary makes no mention of Mt Peace Cemetery, which is the main fact that required the source, so I moved it to External links. StonyBrook _babble 12:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking you might not have been familiar with the different referencing methods used on Wikipedia, and maybe that is what confused you. Besides for the YouTube references (which were introduced by others), I wrote the entire article without using citation templates; per WP:CITECONSENSUS, styles should be kept consistent within an article. Non-templated references are simply written out logically, as they would appear in the article. StonyBrook _babble 14:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam the Woo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matty Roberts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm StonyBrook. An edit that you recently made to Adam the Woo seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I am referring specifically to these additions. You have been warned before about this, so this is a friendly reminder to please not do it again. Thank you. StonyBrook _babble 09:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Talk:Adam the Woo. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. StonyBrook _babble 18:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My edits and comments on both Talk:Adam the Woo and Talk:Billy Davis (guitarist) were entirely my own work and not generated by AI or any automated tool. They were intended to discuss sourcing and article issues, not to add content or circumvent Wikipedia policies. Repeated claims otherwise could inadvertently block constructive discussion. Bimple (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph below, which looks to me to be another AI creation (notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary), was posted after your comment on the Billy Davis talk page was hatted. I am not doubting your intention in improving articles, especially such as your input at Adam the Woo, where you have made 30 edits until now. But most of those edits could not stand on their own without major revisions having to be made. Making mistakes is perfectly acceptable for a newer editor as yourself, since we were all new here once. The issue I am seeing though is that others have to continuously come back and fix things you broke—such as formatting in references—and having to check the prose to see if what you wrote can actually be verified from those references. Then, after pointing out areas in your editing that need improvement, you seem to double down with the problematic editing, such as with your AI use, and it's starting to become a bit disruptive. Case in point, your comment below, as far as I am aware, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that explicitly prohibits the use of AI or other drafting tools on talk pages, is contradicted by WP:LLMCHAT. To be sure, I am interested in what you have to say about article improvements, in your own words; I can assure you that I have zero interest in engaging with the thoughts of some supercomputer. StonyBrook _babble 05:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent and repetitive use of AI/LLM generated material in articles and especially on talk pages, as well as denying it when it is obvious..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I was about to administer this block myself, so good block. I am less concerned about using AI/LLMs to assist in making comments than I am with outright generation of comments. I am even more concerned about the blatant lying that you've been doing claiming you haven't used AI/LLMs to do so. To complain about people accusing you of using AI/LLMs by way of creating a complaint at WP:AN/I using an AI/LLM is just a facepalm moment. We don't need to waste any more time on this. We're not idiots. If ever you want to be unblocked, you'd better seriously reconsider your approach to this project. We want to hear from you, not a machine. YOU are blocked, not a machine. Write in your own words. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bimple (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I understand and respect the block, and I will ensure all future contributions are written personally and in my own words. I feel that my prior comments were constructive, good-faith contributions on talk pages regarding content discussions, citation practices, and editorial processes, and they were intended solely to help editors follow Wikipedia policies and maintain article quality. For context, I have raised concerns about repeated removal of such comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I also maintain that Wikipedia policies do not prohibit using AI tools to assist discussion on talk pages, and I will continue to ensure all contributions are personally written. Bimple (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

According to ZerGPT "We are highly confident this text was AI generated". You need to write in your own words. PhilKnight (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fire your LLM. We don't care that your own writing is perfect from a SPaG perspective; we're quite happy with it being understandable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Really dude? An instant appeal? WasowkiMike (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I agree with Jéské above. Your LLM usage is concerning, and your denial of it does not show your intention to contribute constructively. Nor have you stated what you would specifically do instead of your current behaviour. Your ANI thread has been closed under WP:BOOMERANG, and the consensus is that your behaviour is disruptive, period. If I was the reviewing admin, I would see no reason to unblock. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 20:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

If you make another unblock request that is LLM generated, I will remove your talk page access. As I said above, we are not idiots. Another unblock request written by an LLM just proves you are here to waste everyone's time. Consider this a final warning. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here, is it possible that this user does not speak native English and is using the LLM to translate for him?

Also how are you guys so absolutely certain his messages are AI generated? Maybe I'm an old timer, but it didn't seem any different to me than anyone else's text would. Please excuse my ignorance, I am only here to learn. Devann (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Devann see Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. This along with AI checkers is how I've seen most people determine such things. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 15:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Devann: If he doesn't speak English proficiently enough that we can understand what he writes without resorting to an LLM, then he shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia, full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheTechie:, @Jéské Couriano:,

Thank you for clarifying this for me. I appreciate the information! And again, my apologies for my ignorance. Devann (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Devann No worries! It definitely takes some getting used to. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 03:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)