User talk:DraconicDark

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I am particularly concerned by you PRODing of a large number of articles based upon NEWLLM without there being a pattern of behavior discussed on the users talk page or at WP:AI noticeboard. At least one of these has already been reverted as unjustified, and others may be. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I have replied on the noticeboard, where I have apologized for this and will adjust my behavior. DraconicDark (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi DraconicDarkDraconicDark. I’m following up on the deletion of Armstrong Garden Centers, which I created. I saw the subsequent discussion on your talk page concerning the batch of articles you PRODded under WP:NEWLLM, and your comment that you would adjust your approach.

I did use an LLM as a writing aid when I created Armstrong Garden Centers, particularly to assist with formatting, which is not my strong suit. Please note that the article was created before the current prohibition on LLM-generated article content was adopted. I researched and reviewed the sources myself, checked the factual claims against them, and exercised editorial judgment over what was included. To the best of my knowledge, the resulting article was factual, neutral, and properly sourced.

Armstrong’s (as we call it here for shorthand) is important and specific to Southern California history. The company and its founders played a notable role in the horticultural development and boosterism that shaped Southern California in the late 19th and 20th centuries. The article also linked to several existing Wikipedia articles on important rose varieties developed by Armstrong, which likewise identify Armstrong's as their origin and corroborate the information in the article I put together.

Given the circumstances, would you object to having the article restored, at least to draft or user space, so that I can bring it into compliance with the current rules? I would prefer to resolve this informally rather than pursue a deletion review. Udibi (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Udibi: I have no objections to the article being restored in draft space or user space, as long as you are willing to do a thorough review and fix any outstanding issues it may have. DraconicDark (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@DraconicDark: I would be happy to do so. Thanks. Udibi (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

300k is a bit large for a talk page, see WP:ARCHIVE Ldm1954 (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about this, this is what happens when you're subscribed to automatic messages and forget to clear them out, I guess. I will archive it. DraconicDark (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you setup an automatic archive, that is simple to do. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done this per the instructions on that page. DraconicDark (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding your recent edits to John Knox Bokwe when you modified the page, your revert caused an issue. While the issue of LLM on wikipedia is a serious one and your efforts are appreciated, please be careful about throwing the baby out with the bath water. In this case your revert removed valid code from the Infobox and replaced it with invalid code. This means that valid data was effectively removed from the Infobox. You are not the first, nor will you be the last to make this mistake. In the future, when you revert, please double check that you aren't reverting good edits. This can usually be achieved by previewing your revert to make sure there are no preview warnings. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions of if I can help explain further, please let me know! Again, thank you for fighting the good fight when it comes to dealing with LLM material. Keep up the good work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Noted. That revert was done with Twinkle so there was no option to preview. Didn't realize infobox parameters changed like that. Will watch for that in the future. DraconicDark (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Totally understand. Just something to watch out for when you do a revert. If you use twinkle's revert (which I also do) and you are reverting as many edits are you did (8 edits in this case), safest thing is after the revert, edit and preview the page. Unknown params throw a preview warning so you will know right away. Thanks for understanding! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)