User talk:Bronchalinox

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Darius (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

My edit was not disruptive nor provocative. Both the mop and lollipop are Spanish inventions https://mobi.parador.es/en/blog/spains-most-famous-inventions

The remark left by Quirkle (profile misteriously inactive) was sarcastic. My edit said that women “mopped” the floor on their knees before the invention of the cloth+ stick as can be shown in any epoch film or even Roman times. It was a task given to women and the invention liberated them from it.

Quirkle‘s sarcastic comment is just that, sarcasm based on the fact he has seen my IP in Spain.

I’m a father of 3 beautiful daughters and one son and a proven record in helping human rights associations. I’m not going to go that path.

If the problem was the word “women” , let’s change it for “People”.

Bronchalinox (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Thilio were:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tecnolettra and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 12:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I asked Dr Alcina to review the draft and she provided some information. I also added references to her seminal publications

Tecnolettrs is part of the Spanish AI academia ecosystem Bronchalinox (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I have completely reviewed and enhanced the page. Can I re-submit? Bronchalinox (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SomeoneDreaming. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Draft:TransMedia Catalonia. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Noted with thanks! Bronchalinox (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pangeanic, a link pointing to the disambiguation page FBK was added. 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) 10:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may be related to you. The thread is User:Bronchalinox and Pangeanic. The discussion is about the topic Pangeanic. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:NEWLLM (a guideline) and WP:LLM (an essay) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Fully reviewed, completely neutral and more authoritative citations Bronchalinox (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Pangeanic, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:Pangeanic where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Athanelar (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Bronchalinox, I'm Bearcat. Please note that pages in draft space, such as Draft:Artificial Intelligence in Europe are not allowed to be categorized alongside finished articles in mainspace, per WP:DRAFTNOCAT. The page must stay out of any categories so long as it is outside mainspace, and this is not an optional rule that you're free to disregard or ignore.

You can provisionally list categories in your draft without affecting content categories by using one of the methods described here.

As the page has had to be pulled out of categories two times in four days, do not readd it to categories again, because draft and sandbox pages are not allowed to be in content categories. Note as well that there can be consequences for disruption if it doesn't stop, such as page protection or deletion and/or the temporary or permanent suspension of your editing privileges. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Please note as well that no type of page in any mainspace is ever allowed to be filed in redlinked categories that don't exist to have pages filed in them, per WP:REDNOT. So do not try to readd the page to nonexistent categories again either. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry. I wasn’t aware drafting could send such ripples. Won’t happen again Bronchalinox (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

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

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pangeanic 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

JMWt (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bronchalinox. Thank you for your work on Gouria. Another editor, Flyingphoenixchips, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

The Malima Project section is a nice addition. Good stub, ready for mainspace. great work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Flyingphoenixchips}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks 1M!! Happy yo help always!

Next, I'l release some pictures of the project for open license ~2026-28373-00 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Miminity. An edit that you recently made to Edinburgh of the Seven Seas seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, 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, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bronchalinox, please answer yes or no: have you used AI to write or rewrite any articles or drafts on Wikipedia? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Claudine, I replied extensively in a different thread. I only write about places / situations/ knowledge areas I’m familiar with. As I answered in the other thread and I insist below (comment to MrOllie), I review all information which may come from different sources, my own experience of course.

The means to achieve written information , in 2026, can’t be judged merely for a “Did you use AI or not?”.

As a said, walking to places and using public transport would save the ozone layer and the planet. Gas emissions are bad, we all know that. Hands up who doesn’t use the car to take children to school, go to the supermarket or go to work. Point? We get there faster. We drive, we are in control.

I’ve used tools 50%-60% in some articles, perhaps more in others as they also provided info I didn’t know, then reviewed.

Pangeanic page? I worked there for nearly 10 years, so I know first-hand.

Altogether, I’ve spent 30 years of my life to computer science, data management, AI operations, pattern recognition, statistical systems, the Transformers. I’ve lived it all. I understand it may look to you as “black hat” as the above says.

I am very familiar with the systems’ limitations, what they can and cannot do, even how they can be grounded. I’ve been a strong defender of human control and oversight.

BTW, I do remember a case of my ex-marketing dept being approached by a company in a certain country promising a Wikipedia entry. The service looked legit. They paid. Then none of the references were authoritative enough. Kept asking for more money. Of course, nothing happened. Marketing became the laughing stock for a while.

That’s not me. Bronchalinox (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Using LLMs to generate article content is forbidden. This was a consensus decision reached by the Wikipedia community in March, after much discussion. You might not have known that when you submitted your draft for Artificial intelligence in Europe, but you know now, and should commit to not writing with LLMs here in future. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I would have loved to be part of the discussion Bronchalinox (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Although you missed the discussion, you can read the conments at Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/RfC to gain a better understanding of why the community reached this position. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concerns raised about scope, synthesis and sourcing. I have narrowed the article to European-level AI policy, infrastructure, research coordination, multilingual language technology, adoption and governance, rather than a broad chronology of individual European contributions to AI. I have also removed material that depended on personal knowledge or loose historical association, and retained only claims that can be tied to independent or institutional sources such as OECD reports, the AI Act, EuroHPC, the Council of Europe convention and European Commission policy documents. I will respect the outcome of the discussion, but I believe the revised scope is closer to a coherent "X in Y" article and avoids the earlier synthesis problem. Bronchalinox (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You might be better off adding these comments to the deletion discussion where it will be seen by the editors who are considering deleting it. If you haven't participate in AfD or had an article nominated before, WP:DISCUSSAFD explains the process. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Bronchalinox (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial intelligence in Europe 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bronchalinox. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Bronchalinox. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bronchalinox|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! MrOllie. No, I’m not being paid at all. I’m retired now and pretty familiar with the AI landscape in Europe and Spain in particular, where I reside. The “promotion”, if you wish to call it so, is filling in knowledge gaps with information. Other pages I’ve created like Prompsit or Gouria (a small town where Malima Project was involved particularly in female education) have been approved without a problem.

I have also carried out many edits in the 12 years or so I’ve had an account with Wikipedia. Recently, Barcelona Supercomputing Center, we I do know researchers. The information on the page was pretty outdated. I discussed with them creating content for the Salamandra family of models, for example.

All the content / drafts are completely my own in my spare time.

hope that helps, I’m happy to provide more information if you eish

best wishes Bronchalinox (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you (or were you) associated with Pangeanic in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was an employee, but no longer Bronchalinox (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:COI definately does apply to you then - you should not be adding mentions of this company around Wikipedia as you have been. You should also scroll up and respond to the editor who has asked you a very pertinent question in the section titled 'May 2026'. MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah well! I will. I’m no longer employed, nor getting paid. I have spent the last years of my working life there. I write partly from my own experience and partly research, which in modern times, yes, it requires the use of tools. I then review everything to wikify it and neutralise the tone.

I edit or create new pages, let me insist, only because I see a knowledge gap or info is outdated. I use my own knowledge and experience (that’s the whole point of adding information or creating a page).

Can an AI-generated word slip through the net? Yes it can. I try my best not to. Just like there are facts missing in many pages.

However, if I’m to choose between no information and some information, I choose people to have access to information. In any way. I spent years developing systems (machine translation) so people speaking low/resourced languages in Africa could read and understand drug prospectus. Yes they were machine translated, with and without human review–that was down to availability.

At least they knew what they were taking.

Access to information is the best way to empower communities, believe me.

Having said that, I will respect the group’s decision and reply to the above. Bronchalinox (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The page Low-resource languages has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)