User talk:Eastmain

Ward Pound Ridge Reservation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rambley (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Good job on the cleanup for this one by the way. Always nice seeing what was once a fully AI-generated piece get turned into a well-written, well-sourced article. Rambley (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:CSD-logo-116x139.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Aeropro Business Charter Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Eastmain. Thank you for your additions to the Mason County Historical Society article references. I admire your mission to improve articles that have been nominated to WP:AfD for deletion. Having checked over the references you added, it appears that 3 and 4 are inaccessible (at least to me). When I attempted to view them the webpage displayed this text: '451: Unavailable due to legal reasons. We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time.' This could present as a problem for editors assessing the AfD. If there is a tag or some type of subst/note which could be added to those two references that highlight this, that would be very helpful. Thank you and happy editing! 11WB (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@11wallisb: Thanks for your message. A reference is valid even if it is not available online (for example, a printed book that is only available at a few libraries). I think people within the EEA encounter geoblocks like the ones you mention often enough that they will not be surprised by them. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. That is unfortunate, however I am aware there are certain websites that have this type of thing in place. It just makes viewing references more difficult which is a shame. Definitely not our fault though! 11WB (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

As a follow up, the references look to assist in providing notability for the article. I will be interested to see how this potentially affects editors opinions! You are also more than welcome to partake in the AfD! 11WB (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by David J. Garbary indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Larry Golden indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Robert F. Scagel indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Michael W. Hawkes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by David Pegler indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Nanki Seibutsu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nanki Seibutsu 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/Nanki Seibutsu 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 until the discussion has finished.

Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Salvio ^giuliano 10:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prasinoderma coloniale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coccoid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mugdha Vaishampayan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chintamani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! It looks like you’ve shown interest in WikiClub Toronto meetups in the past. Our next meetup is scheduled for September 21, 2025, in Downtown Toronto. You can find more information here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/2025 Sept 21. Have a great day! SophieWMCA (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Xavier's School, Bhiwadi, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Xavier's School, Bhiwadi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Tian-Yun Chen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by William Suárez indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by José Floriano Barêa Pastore indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

thank you!!! tysm I do coding so yeah (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Aleksandr Fomin (botanist) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Saturdays in Silesia 45 cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NCL Salten grounding, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 03:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Saturdays in Silesia 45 cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The article Feng Jifeng has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. Subject holds a number of important but non notable positions.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Rodham E. Tulloss indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Urs Eggli indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Calumpang National High School 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/Calumpang National High School 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 until the discussion has finished.

Borgenland (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Jean-François Leroy (botanist) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minzu railway station (Inner Mongolia), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minzu railway station (Inner Mongolia) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:North Sea Container Line, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 22:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1980 in public domain, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 03:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1981 in public domain, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 03:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The article St. Francis Xavier's Girls' High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG completely. The first source is from the institution's official website, so of course, not independent. And the second one is from Facebook :/

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Raihanur (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sphiximorpha durani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Davidson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Umrer College of Engineering 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/Umrer College of Engineering 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 until the discussion has finished.

Filmssssssssssss (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Nhlanhla Lux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Sugar Tax (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muellerius capillaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friedrich Müller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SierraVistaRMC Logo 200px.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Eastmain, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Precision Medical Sciences, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precision Medical Sciences.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pseudacteon litoralis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 06:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reason I went with hoax is I can't even verify it exists. There's literally nothing aside from a Commons upload. Did you find something? (Not talking about reliable sources, just any) Star Mississippi 01:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: See User:Russporter62/sandbox, which mentions both the Internet Chapel and the Ostiariate Seminary. See also https://www.facebook.com/InternetChapel I think it exists, but there's no evidence it's notable. If we leave it as a draft, either the creator will improve it or it will go away in six months. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Ahh appears to be an online program. Thanks for the context

And concur, G13 will solve this. Star Mississippi 01:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anthosachne falcis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 17:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bigg Boss (Tamil TV series) season 9, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Morandé 80, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Mayors of Gwangju indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you're using an automated tool that might need tweaking... several of your recent edits have caused "ref within a ref" errors. I fixed one, but left the other so you can take a look when you have a sec - see here, under "list of companies," at State-owned enterprises of Indonesia. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Jessicapierce: Thanks for the note. I'm not running a bot, but I think the problem is with DraftCleaner. I will investigate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hi there, just ran into the same thing at Preikestolen. Just a data point, no worries. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  And at Iranian Revolution, which I only mention because I tried and failed to fix it - that one's tricky. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Koelreuteria arnoldi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 06:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! On 28 February, the Toronto WikiClub, in partnership with AfroCROWD, WikiCari, and Eat More Scarborough, is hosting WikiDiaspora: Exploring Canadian-Caribbean Cuisine. Registration closes 12 February. Details are available on the meetup page. We hope to see you there!

You're receiving this message because you wanted to be notified about Wikipedia meetups in Toronto. You can remove yourself from this list if you're no longer interested in Toronto-area messages.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality. Thank you for your small, but constructive edits to my drafts that improved them. Thank you for your attention-to-detail!

Ell22Moore (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Recipients of honorary degrees from Chonnam National University indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Primefac (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Yes, all three accounts are mine. I wasn't abusing multiple accounts; I was _using_ them, and all my edits were good ones. I never tried to use multiple accounts to !vote multiple times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Editor has already been unblocked. asilvering (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Eastmain, I was really surprised to see this block and I'd like to see you get back to regular editing, but I don't know how you can justify, for example, requesting advanced permissions on an undisclosed alt: . Can you explain what's been going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There's also this one, among other requests, and some AfD-related crossover, for example: , . -- asilvering (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Originally, I just wanted to avoid the aggression that I sometimes see at AfD or RfA or from users like User:Calton, and to have one account for editing from home and other for remote editing. In retrospect, I should have explicitly labelled the additional accounts as alternatives of the main account and chosen names like Eastmain2 or Eastmain_Remote, I also wanted to use IAbot and Citation Bot to clean up articles more like to need clean-up such as recently-submitted drafts and AFD submissions without submission limits. I requested advanced permissions on the alternate accounts so that I could address issues I encountered without hav{{Ping|ing to switch to the main account. Again, I recognize that fully disclosing the alternate accounts would have been better. Apologies for the AfD-related crossover. I really tried to avoid it. Even in Damxung_railway_station, I didn't try to cast two keep !votes; I offered a comment initially and only later a Keep from the second account. So I would like to rename User:Лисан аль-Гаиб to User:Eastmain2 and User:LeapTorchGear to Eastmain3 and just use the alternate accounts for remote work and to finish work on any drafts originally created with an alt account. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Primefac, are you satisfied by this explanation, and does it accord with the technical data? -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes to both questions. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, in that case I think we can unblock all three accounts, with the understanding that

  • they will be promptly renamed
  • the connections between the accounts will be made clear on their userpages
  • there will be no more undisclosed alts.

  Sound good? -- asilvering (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  From the discussion below, I believe the LLM hallucination issues should be taken into account before considering an unblock. Editors are responsible for all the material that they add, regardless of the tools used, and hoaxes such as Draft:Altembese River shouldn't be dismissed just because they were caused by an LLM. In fact, that probably makes it worse, as you're not supposed to use LLMs to generate new articles, and that is a very good illustration of why. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby: @Asilvering: @Primefac: @Ethmostigmus: As I said, I'm sorry for the problems that I caused. I would like to get back to work and do useful things, and not get confused by the names of rivers that show up in species names. I did vet the LLM outputs, but clearly inadequately. I was more shocked than you were when I realized what I had done. Please end my block, and I will request renaming for the alt accounts. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've asked below for this user to promise to stop using LLMs, which is creating more work for their fellow editors. If they decline this request, I think that should be factored into this unblock request. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Eastmain, can you confirm that you're ok with the restrictions I suggested in my previous comment? We should probably also add a "no LLMs" condition on top of that, but if it's just the one incident (no one has yet found another as far as I'm aware) I think we can call that an "embarrassing lesson learned" and do without. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I found other issues on the first article I spot-checked afterwards (Pristimantis koki), which doesn't have hallucinated sources but misrepresents a lot of content from the cited sources, such as:

• It inhabits montane cloud forest at elevations above 1,500 m (specimens were sampled from as low as 1,067 m)
• individuals have been observed on leaf litter (plainly contradicted by the paper, which states that specimens were instead found on logs and sticks)
• P. koki exhibits direct development, in which eggs develop directly into miniature froglets without a free-living tadpole stage (cites a database that makes no mention of this fact)

And other less glaring inaccuracies. That is in fact the main risk factor with LLMs: subtle mistakes and claims not supported by the sources, rather than straight-up blatant hoaxing (which is a thing too, although much rarer). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think a "no LLMs" condition is sensible here then. @Eastmain, if you're still interested in using LLMs for Wikipedia work, my suggestion is that while you're under this unblock condition, you write all your articles as normal, but also generate an LLM version and compare them afterwards. It'll help train you on what kinds of things they screw up, or how they operate differently from how you're inclined to do. -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Yes, I agree not to use LLMs as long as that condition is in place. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Unblocking and renaming! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Apologies for being part of the peanut gallery here, but I think this unblock is entirely too lenient. This editor engaged in sockpuppetry to deceive the community for seven years and created literal hoaxes and we're going to just unblock with a slap on the wrist? Come on. I believe in second chances, but a one account restriction should be the bare minimum here. There was an egregious violation of trust, and the onus is on Eastmain to prove trust can be given again. Until that happens, Eastmain should only be using one account to edit. I believe that is more than fair and shows a great deal of leniency, when your average editor would have just been indeffed for good in this situation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings, Eastmain has provided an explanation for the multiple accounts above. If you believe that there was intent to deceive involved beyond what was stated there, you'll have to substantiate that with evidence. The accounts have been renamed and a specific condition of the unblock is that no further undisclosed accounts are created; the only thing a one-account restriction would do that this does not is be annoying. As for the LLM use, we have a tban from LLMs. Your average editor would not be indeffed for good; they have the same access to appeal as anyone else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Claiming you had to sock because an editor that died in 2022 was mean to you is a rather ridiculous explanation for why multiple undisclosed alt accounts were used. I get wanting to have a different account for remote editing, but 98% of editors use an account name like "Trainsandotherthings_public" or similar, because they aren't trying to deceive the community. If we accept that Eastmain was not trying to deceive the community, but had a continued and egregious lapse of judgement for seven years, where does that lead us? Why should anyone believe this behavior won't occur again? That's why a one account restriction is justified here until we have a proven track record of no more undisclosed alts or acts of deception, because regardless of intention the end result was deception.

The AfD participation mentioned above is deceptive because it gives the impression that multiple editors were participating when they were really the same person. Even if only one account gave a bolded vote, that's still creating the illusion of multiple editors with a similar viewpoint and that's simply unfair to the rest of the community.

How about when Eastmain3 asked for NPP reviewer just a few days before Eastmain? Maybe that would have been a good time to disclose the alt account? Or maybe when the two undisclosed alts each individually requested AfC reviewer permissions?

Using more than one account is a privilege, not a right, and Eastmain has demonstrated they cannot be trusted with that privilege at this time. And if a newbie editor had been caught doing this behavior, I guarantee you a one account restriction would be part of the unblock conditions. I'm not going to make a big stink and go to the dramaboards over this, because as frustrated and disappointed I am with Eastmain's behavior he doesn't deserve that, but I really think consideration should be given to a one account restriction here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, requesting perms is part of what bothered me about the use of multiple accounts in the first place. You'll notice that the alt accounts do not have extra perms. Regarding if a newbie editor had been caught doing this behavior, I guarantee you a one account restriction would be part of the unblock conditions, I can personally guarantee you that this is incorrect and that I have given at least one new editor a similar "no undisclosed alts" condition. Usually when I'm handling sock unblocks I give out a one-account restriction, but that's because most sock unblocks aren't a first (caught) offense. Admin actions are supposed to be as light as possible while still containing the disruption. With the accounts renamed, there is little serious potential for disruptively deceptive editing. I'm sure Eastmain is well aware they're on thin ice. Consider, among other things, the effect of having two permanent lines in a block log that had been clean for two decades.

I understand your frustration and disappointment with Eastmain's actions, and I share it. I also share your desire not to make a big stink and go to the dramaboards over this. That leaves us exactly where we are. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would've probably accepted a similar unblock restriction for a newer user. I've logged many an unblock condition at WP:EDR, and believe that a second chance with restrictions is always better than leaving a blocked editor blocked forever. Although, as they say, the last chance saloon doesn't serve free refills. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A new section, Talk:Cedars-Sinai Medical Center#Revision of Controversy Section, has been created for something you had commented on. Julian in LA (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have rejected Draft:Marcusenius altembesi, created by your alternate account User:Лисан аль-Гаиб. There is no described species, accepted or otherwise, known as Marcusenius altembesi. The sources you provided do not mention any Marcusenius altembesi (they do mention the real species Marcusenius altisambesi). All of the information in the draft was invented wholecloth, with no actual link to the sources cited. You cited an entry in FishBase for the real species M. altisambesi, but changed the title of the reference to include this made-up specific epithet. I can find no mentions of the Altembese River it is supposedly native to - which you also created a draft for under your alt account, which also cites sources that make no mention of the topic. The writing in these articles reads as the product of a large language model. You've also edited existing articles to insert mentions of this nonexistent species and created items for these hoaxes on Wikidata. I suspect there are further problematic edits hiding in that accounts contribs that I am yet to find.
Why? Why attempt to push obviously false information onto Wikipedia? You're not some random vandal with an axe to grind, you're a contributor I recognise. I am deeply concerned by this.

(Note: I've edited my comment to strike a portion that I realised was incorrect. I misread the edit I linked: it shows the alt account adding a wikilink to this fake species name that was already present in the article, rather than itself adding the fake name to the body of the article. This remains extremely odd, but apologies for the mistake!) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Another creation of the alt account using this fake fish name: Template:Congo Basin endemic fishes. The other 6 species included in the template are real species. I've also identified several other drafts on (real) African fish species where the text of the article fails verification, typical of LLM hallucinations. I'm genuinely perplexed by this - I cannot understand why an editor such as yourself would do this. My best guess is that you asked a LLM to generate you a bunch of articles but failed to adequately review them for factual errors. I hope there is a better explanation and that this is all a terrible misunderstanding, because this reflects very poorly on an experienced editor such as yourself. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Another: Template:Mormyridae electric fishes includes the nonexistent Marcusenius altembesi, but also mistakenly includes Gnathonemus victoriae - this is a long outdated synonym of Marcusenius victoriae, not used in decades. I somewhat struggle to believe that any human editor with such an interest in this topic would make a mistake like this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus: Thank you for the review. I understand that the river name and species name are not supported by reliable sources and appear to be the result of a misspelling or misinterpretation, and I failed to catch the errors in the output from the LLM. I will not pursue these drafts further. I appreciate the clarification. As you know, I am currently blocked and cannot edit the draft or Template:Mormyridae electric fishes, but I would repair the mistakes if I could. My initial source was https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00222930701250987?scroll=top&needAccess=true , and I must have transcribed the species name from the abstract incorrectly. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely struggle to understand how a "misspelling" can lead to you making up an entire river (Draft:Altembese River) out of nowhere. For reference, the real Marcusenius altisambesi is named after its range in the upper Zambezi River, so it isn't just a case of writing about an actual river and misspelling one or two characters in the name. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

LLMs can sound awfully plausible when they are hallucinating, which is why I thought (incorrectly) that the Altembese River (corresponding to the nonexistent Marcusenius altembesi) was another name for the upper Zambezi River. I asked the LLM to create a draft about the Altembese River, and it provided one that looked plausible. Again, I'm sorry. I thought that I was double-checking LLM outputs properly, and clearly I wasn't. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Can we get a commitment from you to stop using LLMs completely? They are not a good fit for Wikipedia because of problems such as this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This was all fallout from a misspelled species name rather than malice. The draft produced by ChatGPT said the fish was found in the Altembese River. That wasn't in Wikipedia, which struck me as odd. I thought it was a real river that nobody had bothered to create a Wikipedia article for, so I asked ChatGPT to create an article for the river and used that draft for the second article. The least complicated explanation is generally the best one. I screwed up despite my experience, and I'm sorry for that, but I had no intention of creating a hoax, just turning a red link to blue. I'm replying at this point because the language on this talk page makes me think that people misunderstood what happened. I would like the block ended. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

But @Eastmain, the issue here has never been that anyone thought you were operating out of malice. The issue is that you created LLM-generated articles and did not fact-check them. Then, after having been unblocked with a commitment to stop using LLMs, you continued using LLMs. -- asilvering (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologise that my initial post sounded like an accusation of bad-faith editing - I honestly didn't consider that you would have failed to check the output of an LLM before posting it here and I was so perplexed by seeing such an obviously incorrect draft coming from an experienced user that I didn't know how else to explain it, especially in combination with your use of undisclosed alts. To clarify, I do not believe you have acted with any malice and I do not accuse you of any bad-faith editing. That said, with all due respect, your intent is besides the point here: if you had attempted to verify anything in either draft by looking at just one of the sources ChatGPT included you would have realised the massive errors. This indicates that you did not do any verification of ChatGPT's output before pasting it into Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NEWLLM. More pressingly, this indicates an extremely careless attitude to editing, and the subsequent violation of your unblock condition doesn't bode well. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Ty Morse. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and Possible sock puppetry involved in moving from draft. 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. Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

My only involvement with that draft was to replace curly apostrophes and quotation marks with typewriter ones using DraftCleaner, which I try to do with as many drafts as I can. I have no conflict of interest, and don't have a position on whether the draft is ready to be returned to article space. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Then what is your connection to User:Ameerkhoso22? Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

None. I was going through [[Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago]] to run Citation Bot and DraftCleaner on the drafts to clean them up a bit (ore difficult and time-consuming now that Citation Bot won't accept multiple articles or categories), and User:Ameerkhoso22's draft was one of the ones I touched. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

https://lp.ca/5pI0OS?sharing=true Finding an English-language source shouldn’t be difficult. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anthosachne scabra, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 04:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Sergei Arsenjevic Nevski, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm confused by this reference in your draft Draft:Praeconvoluta, it seems to be a 2005 study but is used to support a claim about 2022 research? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Thanks. The reference should have been after the first sentence in the same paragraph. I have moved it now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, happy to see your reactivity once more! I was a bit confused about how this happened (especially given other vague wording in the draft such as body-wall musculature patterns useful for taxonomy), but it's great that you quickly caught it. I decided to spot check a few of your other recent contributions, if you don't mind: Cribroheros diquis also has some odd claims not fully supported by the sources. For instance, this source gives a size of 14 cm, which becomes "11–14 cm" in your writing, and that one doesn't seem to verify It inhabits moderately to slowly flowing freshwater environments with sandy or muddy substrates.

Draft:Nectophrynoides saliensis is also interesting, appearing to be a point-by-point summary of the first source, but somehow continuing into summarizing the acknowledgement section (Financial support was provided by multiple foundations and institutions, emphasizing collaborative efforts in herpetological research.) and even seemingly random items of that source's reference list (de Queiroz's works outline the general lineage concept of species and its implications for taxonomy., The IUCN Red List serves as a critical resource for tracking threatened species.) despite them not being relevant to the draft itself. I am genuinely curious about your methodology in writing these articles/drafts, especially given your quite impressive output recently. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Table 1 of https://tropicalstudies.org/rbt/attachments/volumes/vol22-1/03-Bussing-Fishes.pdf (the original description) has a range of 80.9 mm to 133.0 mm https://aquainfo.nl/artikel/cribroheros-diquis/ (as you observe) says 14 cm. aquainfo.nl seems to be aimed at the aquarium trade, and perhaps captive fish who are fed regularly are larger than their wild counterparts. I will change that to 14 cm, though. It's possible that the measurement and the habitat claim came from the genus article or another species that I was using as a template.

Draft:Nectophrynoides_saliensis is still a work in progress. I haven't submitted it yet because it isn't ready. I used Acrobat's built-in summarizing function to extract the highlights of a journal article and pasted them into the draft to work on later. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Acrobat's built-in summarizing function: that function relies on an LLM, which is a violation of the unblock condition you agreed to only three days ago.

Additionally, I struggle to make sense of It's possible that the measurement and the habitat claim came from the genus article or another species that I was using as a template, as the genus article only states that Depending on species, their habitat ranges from fast-flowing rivers and streams, to slow-moving or standing water such as ponds and lakes and the only other species with an article is a one-line stub with nothing about its habitat. Not much to use as a template here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

just done says 97% of your text shows signs of AI generation. Theroadislong (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm close to blocking you again. How much experienced editor time are you going to take up with your continued use of AI? Also are we going to need to do a mass cleanup of your old stuff? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Eastmain's use of generative AI in mainspace and draftspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I have reinstated the indefinite block given the immediate and flagrant violation of the very clear unblock conditions (for an unblock that frankly you were damned lucky to get in my opinion considering the socking and prolific use of AI you were originally blocked for). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I used LLM, but I thought I had checked the outputs carefully before posting. I will stay away from ChatGPT from now on. I know the discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I can't reply there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay but your agreement wasn't to check carefully before using LLMs (which you clearly didn't do considering how obvious the errors actually were), it was to entirely forgo the use of LLMs. Which you immediately disregarded. Why should anyone trust this apology? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, the time to stay away from ChatGPT is not "from now on" but "from the moment you said I agree not to use LLMs". Which was on the 4th. -- asilvering (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Theeverywhereperson: You might be able to improve the Sultansuyu Dam article by adding some of the references in Grokipedia's artice about the dam at https://grokipedia.com/page/sultansuyu_dam While Grokipedia is not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be cited as a reference, the information in the article may be worth adding if you can confirm it through the references or through your own searching. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure it's a good idea to be pinging people to your talk page while blocked for llm use, and encouraging them to read an llm generated encyclopedia? It seems like your proclivity for using llm tools is quite strong, to the point where you can't even avoid doing it while blocked. I'm afraid this will probably hurt a future unblock request. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please re-read my message, which related to an AfD nomination. I was careful to encourage the editor to use Grokipedia appropriately, something I may have faied to do at times. I really don't want to see Sultansuyu Dam deleted because of an inadequate WP:BEFORE. You may want to make your own evaluation as to whether any those references ought to be used to improve the dam article. Note that while Grokipedia's article is LLM-generated, the references themselves do not appear to be. I want to improve Wikipedia, and I recognize that LLM needs to be used carefully if it is used at all. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The optics of it are poor. It paints a picture of you not getting the point about LLM concerns. But perhaps you can convince a different admin that pinging people to your talk page while blocked for LLM use to suggest they visit an LLM-generated encyclopedia to use that info to participate in AFD isn't a problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Hi, different admin here. It is a problem, and it is inappropriate useage of your talk page while blocked if not outright soliciting proxy editing. Do not do this. Continuing to do this could get your talk page access revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I understand your point. I hope you realize that I had never heard of Sultansuyu Dam before I noticed it in the AfD list, and I recognized that it seemed to be a flawed AfD based on a failure to do an adequate WP:BEFORE. Flawed AfDs happen more often than any of us would like. When I suggest that someone check a Grokipedia or Fandom.com article, I'm not suggesting that Grokipedia is a reliable source, but that the article may include references that could help expand the corresponding English Wikipedia article if the statements can be verified. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting that Grokipedia is a reliable source: Respectfully, that's not what anyone here is saying. The issue isn't about the quality of the source, or whether you heard of the topic before. The issue is that, as a blocked user, you should not be asking others to edit on your behalf to circumvent your block. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Cool. I would just suggest that, in general, it would be nice if more people approached AfD from the perspective that many problem articles can be fixed rather than deleted. Without talking about any AfD in particular, the first thing to do when an article about a topic outside the English-speaking world seems underreferenced or doesn't appear to be notable is to check the corresponding article in the appropriate other languages. The other-language article may be significantly longer and have more references. It may also be valuable to check the corresponding article in Grokipedia for references that appear there but not in the existing English article. The same thing applies to drafts. If someone complains that there are broken links in an article, run IAbot. About half of newly-created drafts need Citation bot and Draft cleaner run on them. The principle that cleanup is better than deletion also applies to seemingly promotional articles: fix them rather than tag them for speedy deletion. I suppose this sounds like I'm running for office, but I'm not. I would just like people to understand why I often !vote Keep at AfD. So if I vanish, please remember what I've said in this note and share it with other editors. And if someone ends the block (which I would like), I have lost interest in creating articles about living things. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Comment I am reading through this in passing and am very concerned you are suggesting we use Grokipedia, the Elon Musk replacement for Wikipedia entirely created by AI. I've looked through and it appears to be almost a complete copy of Wikipedia plus completely AI written articles. I'd like to ask you, do you trust all sources used by Grok that aren't used by Wikipedia? Also, have you checked out the sources mentioned by Grok that aren't used on Wikipedia and do you 100% believe they are they usable here? Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting we use Grokipedia without trusting it. Part of the reason Elon Musk created Grokipedia was to create an encyclopedia that shared his biases, which means you have to be particularly cautious about Grokipedia articles about billionaires and transexuality. If a reference used by Grokipedia isn't acceptable as a Wikipedia reference (IMDb, for example), then either don't use it or move it to External links in our article. That being said, Grokipedia's AI is able to search for and find information and references far faster than a human can, which is why Grokipedia's articles seem to be longer and better-referenced than their Wikipedia sources. Using the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica has the same problems; its 1911 anglocentric perspective colours the whole encyclopedia, but is more obvious in some articles than others. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Based on your answers, you clearly recognize that IMDb is not an acceptable source and at most belongs in external links. The larger issue, though, is that encyclopedias themselves should not be used to source Wikipedia, nor treated as research tools for AfD. That applies regardless of whether the encyclopedia is human-edited or AI-generated.

  You also acknowledge that Grokipedia has identifiable bias. At that point, I don’t think the question is whether it can be used “carefully,” but whether it should be used at all in Wikipedia. Even if individual references listed there might turn out to be usable, directing editors to an LLM-generated encyclopedia raises real concerns about sourcing, process, and perception.

  At AfD, the expectation is that editors independently evaluate notability by locating and assessing reliable, independent secondary sources themselves. That’s different from being pointed to an AI-assembled list of references with no editorial oversight or transparency in how those sources were selected.

  I’m not an admin and I’m not commenting on block matters. I’m just explaining why several editors are pushing back on this approach. The concern isn’t about intent; it’s that this method doesn’t align with how sourcing and participation are expected to work on Wikipedia. Ktkvtsh (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  “I’m suggesting we use Grokipedia without trusting it” is, in my opinion, still not okay. If something isn’t trusted, it shouldn’t be used at all. That’s especially true for an AI-generated encyclopedia.

  To be clear, I won’t be using Grokipedia. I have zero trust in it and I’m not going to rely on or repeat anything it presents. It was created specifically to get around Wikipedia, and that alone makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia editing or discussion.

  I’m not an administrator and I’m not trying to escalate this. I’m just genuinely concerned about the idea that we should normalize using an LLM-generated encyclopedia in any capacity here, because that runs counter to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Ktkvtsh (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Not to derail but I second this. It's no different to saying we should use a blog or the Daily Mail as a starting point for articles - if we know something is bad, then we should avoid it entirely.

  It'd just involve creating extra steps by adding factchecking to something we don't trust before we've even started; usually you'd research a subject to see what reliable sources say and build from there.

  Instead, you've got a base article that needs full in-depth analysis before you've even begun, especially copyright violations - AI loves to do that so you've got to check the whole thing beforehand.

  Then checking if it's notable via reliable sources (which might not even be on there), then fact checking, editing, deciding what to scrap and keep, what to add and where in order to maintain NPOV...

  If the entire thing is unsuitable, it'll take far longer than if you'd not bothered with it at all.

  My major concern is that, unless you know the subject well, the very first thing you've done is exposed yourself to a possibly biased/unreliable viewpoint and you've now got to extricate yourself from that mentality.

  It's extra work that's just not necessary at best and introduces unconscious bias at worst. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Just a note, I am not going to improve this with sources from Grokipedia, and since some of the writing might not be appropriate for Wikipedia and non-NPOV compliant, my AfD nomination still stands, Eastmain, as I am not going to use collections made by an AI for a Wikipedia page. If someone else tried, I would probably request a CSD or PROD instead. Theeverywhereperson talk here 15:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  As you wish. You might want to do a WP:BEFORE, both for this article and for any other article you are considering nominating for deletion. For a technical topic such as a Dam, The Wikipedia Library may turn up helpful references that Google would not. It is helpful to remember that both search engines and machine translation are forms of artifical intelligence themselves, prone to the same errors that ChatGPT is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Please, stop using your talk page to ask other users to do things when blocked. This is your last warning. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:54, 10 February 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Okay, I understand. No more LLM, even if checked carefully. If I'm unblocked, I would like to focus more on improving articles at AfD as well as other people's drafts. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but no. You burnt your last chance with your previous unblock. At this point nobody is going to be able to trust you when you say "I will not use LLMs". At this point you need to take the standard offer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 9 February 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.

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Glyptochelone, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 05:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Micoletzkya masseyi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 14:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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.

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:Gabriel Mohagheghi 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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I submitted the draft after I removed some spelling and formatting errors, but the original creator was RavenFox94 (talk · contribs · count), who might have been Gabriel Mohagheghi himself. RavenFox94 has not been active since July 31, 2025, and the draft was in danger of being deleted under G13. Gabriel Mohagheghi may be notable within the world of beach soccer, but I am not interested in making any further edits to the draft. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 March 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).

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

---

Request reason:

It's been a month since I was blocked, and I would like to return to editing without using LLMs. I had been trying to create good drafts on subjects that I wasn't very familiar with, and I felt sensitive about only being able to create relatively short stubs on my own, and thought an LLM would be okay provided that I removed obvious LLM-linked problems such as would be okay. I now undrstand that those LLM outputs, even after I cleaned them up, were still problematic, and I'm sorry. I understand the concerns of the blocker, and I undertake not to use LLM from now on. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 6:27 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Two issues here: 1) the standard offer is for you to wait 6 months, and the time is counted since your last edit (i.e. the clock resets every time you file an unblock request). 2) your comment to the effect of I now undrstand that those LLM outputs, even after I cleaned them up, were still problematic suggests to me that you still may not understand the issues with LLM-driven editing; a future unblock request would benefit from a clearer explanation of the issues with LLM editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 3 March 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.

Hi, Eastmain. I'm not an admin, so my advice may not be helpful. A lot of trust has been broken here, and it seems to me that you might have more luck if you ask for the block to be converted into a mainspace only block. That means you'd have to make edit requests on talkpages and submit all draft articles through AfC. You also might have more luck convincing an admin to unblock you if you can point to a decent body of non-problematic, non-LLM based editing on a sister project like the Simple Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikispecies, or whatever one you find interesting. No promises, of course. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 16:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Schima mertensiana, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 21:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:National Police Cadet Corps Logo 2018.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Amycolatopsis marina, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 17:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eastmain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Asyneuma lobelioides, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 06:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)