User talk:Editor13002

Hello, Editor13002, I'm Bearcat. Please note that pages in your personal sandbox, such as User:Editor13002/sandbox, are not allowed to be categorized alongside finished articles in mainspace, per WP:USERNOCAT. 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 twice in less than three hours, 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) 21:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat, Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood the category rules for sandbox pages and was preparing the article for eventual publication into mainspace. I didn’t realize the categories needed to be added only after the page is moved out of the sandbox. I’ve removed them from the draft. Editor13002 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Commandant Quacks-a-lot, left the following feedback:

This draft duplicates another submission, Dustin Bayn, currently submitted for review. To save time, we will review the other submission only. Any future edits or improvements should be made on that submission, not here.

Submitting it twice won't get it reviewed any faster, sorry.

Next steps

• Edit User:Editor13002/sandbox to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware that it had been submitted twice. There is no urgency on my end. All my best. Editor13002 (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for writing it! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Editor13002! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Dustin L. Bayn. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and No proven pass of WP:BIO. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. . 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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I want to clarify that this article is not intended to be promotional. Its purpose is to provide a factual, historically grounded resource for individuals researching the descendants of Joseph E. Maddy and their contributions to music education, military service, geology, instrument craftsmanship, and the broader historical development surrounding Interlochen and related institutions.

I have also published a broader series of historical and genealogical articles regarding the Maddy family lineage and associated historical records, which is why some of the archival and family-history material appears on my company’s website. The intention behind preserving and publishing these materials is historical documentation and public research accessibility, not advertising or commercial promotion. Editor13002 (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Interlochen Center for the Arts have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Interlochen Center for the Arts was changed by Editor13002 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954094 on 2026-05-23T08:20:38+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sarsenet. An edit that you recently made to Interlochen Center for the Arts 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. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding unverifiable or fabricated AI-generated content. However, the material I added was based on publicly available sources and historical references associated with the institution. I have been actively revising the article to improve sourcing quality, remove overly promotional language, and ensure citations are tied to verifiable references. An "AI chatbot" was not used to revise the article in question. Editor13002 (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you recently removed content from Interlochen Center for the Arts without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See discussion on the article's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at your article Janet Elizabeth Rieder-Henderson, I'm also wondering if you are connected to her in any way? Please see the conflict of interest guidance. Tacyarg (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concern for conflict of interest. However, I'm a 3rd party. The edits I made to the Interlochen Center for the Arts page was to remove promotional tones. Editor13002 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

As a 3rd party, My goal is to provide valuable public resources that preserve and improve access to information regarding Interlochen Center for the Arts, its founding, and the individuals, history, and related developments connected to the institution. If there's any further issues, please let me know. Editor13002 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for replying. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by third party in this context. Do you mean you are connected to Interlochen and /or Janet Elizabeth Rieder-Henderson, or that you are not? Tacyarg (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I wish to clarify: as stated in my last message, we are a third party, meaning we are not formally associated with or directly connected to the organization itself or the individuals whose names are associated with Interlochen. We do not need to maintain an official affiliation in order to have an incentive to contribute information to the public domain and assist in preserving publicly accessible historical information related to Michigan history, its institutions, and the individuals connected to them. The goal is to provide access to historical data and information that may be valuable to the public domain and to individuals conducting research related to the institution, its history, and its broader historical context. Interlochen Center for the Arts is an educational institution, which makes the preservation and accessibility of its historical record particularly valuable for researchers, historians, alumni, students, and members of the public interested in Michigan history and the development of arts education.

Wikipedia itself recognizes the importance of preserving verifiable historical and educational information through its policies surrounding notability, verifiability, and public documentation. Educational institutions and the individuals connected to their historical development are routinely documented for public research purposes, particularly when supported by reliable and publicly accessible sources.

Relevant Wikipedia policies:

Verifiability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Reliable Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Public interest coverage of organizations and institutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)” Editor13002 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That response looks as if it was part-written using AI, though; please don't do that, and don't share an account (your use of "we"). Tacyarg (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of speculation and confusion here. My use of the word ‘we’ is intended to suggest that I represent an organized group, it does not explicitly mean I share a login with anyone else.

Additionally, this is now the second time you’ve suggested that an AI tool is being used. No AI tool is being used.

Is there anything else I can clarify for you? Editor13002 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Editor13002, when you suggest you represent an organized group, does that mean you are being paid or receiving some other remuneration for your editing? Wikipedia requires disclosure of such arrangements. Einsof (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion is that assumptions are not the best method to collaborate. I am not paid. Editor13002 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Benjamin J. Maddy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. - The9Man ^Talk 07:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This article does make a credible claim of significance under WP:A7 because Benjamin J. Maddy is directly connected to multiple individuals already documented and discussed within matters of public and historical interest, including Joseph E. Maddy, founder of Interlochen Center for the Arts, and Dean A. Robb, a published civil rights attorney and public-interest legal figure.

The article establishes familial and historical relevance within a documented institutional and educational lineage tied to Interlochen Center for the Arts and related historical subjects. Under Wikipedia’s speedy deletion guidance, A7 does not apply when an article makes a credible assertion of significance, even if notability may later require broader discussion at AfD rather than speedy deletion.

The subject is not being presented as random or trivial, but rather as part of a historically connected family associated with documented educational, musical, and public-interest figures already written about or under active development on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASpeedy_deletion?

Additionally, the article contains at least two supporting sources establishing identity and contextual historical relevance. Questions of sourcing depth or broader notability are matters more appropriate for standard deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion under A7. Wikipedia guidance specifically notes that A7 is a lower threshold focused only on whether any credible claim of significance is present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASpeedy_deletion? Editor13002 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please be advised that I will provide an additional opportunity for this article to be reviewed in good faith and within the context of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I would ask that the primary purpose and intent of the article be considered carefully before conclusions are reached regarding its significance.

While you may personally view the subject as insignificant, that does not necessarily mean the subject lacks historical, educational, genealogical, or public-interest value to others. Wikipedia routinely contains articles that serve research, archival, institutional, and historical purposes beyond immediate mainstream recognition.

At minimum, I believe the article establishes a credible contextual connection to individuals and subjects already associated with documented public and historical interest. I respectfully ask that the review remain grounded in policy, sourcing, and neutrality rather than subjective assumptions about perceived importance. Editor13002 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rudolph Charles "R.C." Rieder. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I may be guilty of edit warring, and I can acknowledge that point. What I will not concede, however, is the assertion that I used large language models to generate encyclopedia content absent direct evidence of that conduct. I also find it extremely counterproductive that everyone appear's comfortable relying on AI-based detection tools to support that position. It would seem my voice carries absolutely no weight compared to ZeroGBT. Per the edit waring in question, I imagine if a consensus was feasibly possible things would be different. Editor13002 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Einsof didn't mention AI detectors. Neither Sarsenet. Nor did gurkubondinn. Nor NicheSports. The OP mentioned it in the original post and I mentioned that one of your talk page messages got a 99% score, but we both know the discussion was overwhelmingly focused on the content/process itself. Stop trying to gaslight folks. JTtheOG (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove all my content please. Editor13002 (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not possible, see WP:OWN. When you submitted them, you irrevocably released the text under CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses (see the text next to the submit button). Though if the texts were generated by an AI, then they are in the public domain because a license can only be granted by the copyright holder, and copyright is not granted to machine-generated works. Though you can request speedy deletion under WP:G7, at least for the articles that are currently at AfD as that is generally interpreted as agreement with the deletion discussion. --gurkubondinn 08:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Go to town then. Editor13002 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do you mean that you want the article that is listed at AfD to be deleted? If you want to, I can make the G7 request on your behalf if you explicitly ask me to, since you are currently blocked and can't make the required edit yourself. You can also just wait and tag it with {{db-g7}} yourself when your block expires if you prefer. --gurkubondinn 08:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead. Delete them all. Editor13002 (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that the articles will be deleted, except for the one that has been listed at AfD already. I don't feel fully confident tagging it for G7 on your behalf without being able to reference you acting on your behalf. The G7 criteria is for requests by the authoring user that are made in good faith. But you make the request yourself in some hours. --gurkubondinn 08:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Fix up my AI slop. Thanks! Editor13002 (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Editor13002 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The rest of the articles probably have notable subjects. They just need some TLC. Matthew was the only obviously non-notable one (there's a possibility coverage can be uncovered, but I looked and couldn't find much). JTtheOG (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Following the expiration of the 24-hour block, I will likely take the initiative to remove my contributions entirely. The reason is fairly straightforward: the environment no longer feels constructive or supportive of good-faith contributions.

My 2 cents, Ideally, someone will eventually take the opportunity to repair the broader collapse of constructive dialogue and collaborative review standards surrounding these discussions, because at the moment much of the process feels increasingly adversarial rather than solution-oriented. Editor13002 (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That does not create a meaningful resolution from my perspective.

Volunteering time is one thing. Being placed in a position where I must continuously defend myself against speculative accusations and repeatedly revisit the same unresolved issue is another.

Quite frankly, when my direct statement that no AI tools were used for article generation was met not with resolution but with escalating suspicion and circular debate, it created the impression that the discussion itself had already moved beyond anything realistically capable of being resolved constructively. Editor13002 (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while I truly try to WP:AGF, I maintain that there is no way you wrote all those sentences in green that I pointed out. That might make me an asshole, or way-too-overeager to call out LLM usage, or blinded by the wave of AI slop taking over this site, but we've simply seen so many LLM-generated articles that it's not that hard to spot those types of edits when they're that egregious. Not to mention troubling actions like removing almost 200 sources from a page while using misleading edit summaries. If you didn't use AI, I think you came out the gates too hot by publishing four drafts in your first four edits within an half-hour of each other before properly understanding the ins-and-outs of key pillars like tone and verifiability, which led to suspicious text being called out. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Per my last message. You've got your wish. You've manifested your own reality. They will be removed. Editor13002 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I've not once advocated for their removal. That's your wish. As I said, the subjects are probably all notable, save for Matt. JTtheOG (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

All the events combined have exhausted me as a new user. I'm done. Editor13002 (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record, if I am the one supposedly “coming on strong,” then I honestly do not know what that phrase means anymore. Try defending yourself against dozens of users making accusations all at once. While also remembering this is your free time. Editor13002 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm not sure what you mean. I said if anything I'm the asshole for lashing out at someone because I perceived them to be hurting the Wiki project. I was clearly the one who came on strong. If you're referring to "coming out the gates too hot", that refers to publishing four drafts in your first four edits within an half-hour of each other before properly understanding the ins-and-outs of key pillars like tone and verifiability, not your defense against the barrage of accusations, which I have no doubt was overwhelming for a new user getting acclimatized. JTtheOG (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I've noted on the record that I now feel completely determined to not contribute anymore. I've withdrawn. You don't need to establish an ego anymore. Editor13002 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Now is that charge speculative or evidence-based? JTtheOG (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

All my best Editor13002 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew Z. Robb 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/Matthew Z. Robb 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.

JTtheOG (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I’d be more than happy to delete the article myself if it truly has no encyclopedic value. At this point, I regret taking the time to research, source, organize, and contribute all this material. Editor13002 (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Editor13002: I didn't see this reply earlier, but I believe this can be interpreted as an agreement to delete the article. So I'll request WP:G7 on your behalf shortly, unless you don't want me to. --gurkubondinn 08:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no incentive to keep any of the articles I wrote on here. It's a pain. Editor13002 (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you want my genuine advice and thoughts on what happened? I can tell you, but I'm not going to force it on you. --gurkubondinn 09:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, we're all sharing thoughts today. That's what today is all about, hit me up. Editor13002 (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

First off, please take this as the friendly and genuine advice that this is meant as. Remember that I still haven't accused you of anything, and that was on purpose. I believe that you knew that Grammarly (or whatever other tool you may have used) had altered your text and that it was in contravention with the NOLLM guideline. I am not accusing you of doing this out of malice, or even of having done this intentionally. This is just what I believe happened, and I am not assuming any intention on your behalf. I think that your lack of substantial responses and your failure to engage about the sentences that @JTtheOG had pointed out kind of shows that this caught you off guard. It is very easy to get used to these tools, and take them as something "normal" and "accepted". Your legal background (though not as a lawyer!) probably also made you feel like the text was better this way, because you are used to gauging text in that context. Writing in the context of an encyclopaedia, where we put the readers first and want to be as accessible to as many people as possible, is a fundamentally different environment than "legal stuff" (and that's fine).

Where you went wrong was how you responded to these questions. I believe that you felt attacked, maybe even on a personal level. That someone was dismissing your writing out of hand, just hand waiving about LLMs instead of telling you exactly which sentences were "bad". There's a reason why we don't go into the details about that, mostly because it is usually a form of sealioning from someone that is refusing to actually engage with us, and because if you give some examples and the user fixes those, they have only fixed a symptom (the "bad" sentences), but the problem (the text is AI-generated) is still there and nothing was actually fixed. If you had instead been straight forward and honest about what tools you used, and how you used them, then this would have gone much differently (and wasted a whole lot less time for everybody involved). Maybe your use of Grammarly is not the problem here, I don't know because you haven't told us much about how you used it. I have since taken a closer (but not very close) look at your edits, and there are several other things that are suspicious about your edits than just those sentences. Most of them could have other plausible explanations, but that would still require you to engage in a conversation with us in good faith.

You've also not adequately addressed the concerns of conflicts of interest that have been raise. Personally, I think that the image descriptions of the images uploaded to Commons are the most worrying. You are not prohibited from writing about family, friends, or yourself. But you are discouraged to, for very good reason. It is very difficult for anyone to write from a neutral point of view about people that they are connected to. That is just a part of the human condition. But you could be open about this, and there is a decent chance that someone might be interested in working with you on those articles, should you be open to that. Having access to personal family albums would be invaluable, as you not only are in possession of the photographs but you also have the copyright required to release the photos under the required CC-BY-SA license on Commons.

Most of the users that responded to you, myself included, are deeply invested in protecting the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia has gone from being dismissed by people ("you can't trust anything you read on Wikipedia because anyone can just write whatever they want there!") to being almost universally recognised as being a source to trust. People come here to read about major current events happening, while other people are working behind the scenes to make sure that everything that they read is verifiably accurate and not speculation, rumours or (even worse) misinformation. Today Wikipedia is almost the default source of information about events, people, history, science, and anything in between. And it was all written by regular people that, on their own free time, just decided to sit down and write about it for no reason other than that they wanted to. Or at least, it used to be. The release of ChatGPT changed a lot for us, and I personally believe that the current AI bubble is the biggest threat to the project. In fact, I think it is an existential threat. That's why I spend so much time on this. I two drafts (about two people related to each other) that I am trying to write, but it goes very slowly, because every time that I open Wikipedia, I end up spending hours on dealing with AI issues. Having access to photographs like yours would be amazing, because I can't use any of the photographs of the people that I'm writing about since they belong to private collections that I have no way of contacting (some might be in state archives, and I'm working on that bit). But that's neither here nor there, and it certainly has nothing to do with you.

All of that being said, I hope that you stay around here and continue to edit. I hope that you edit articles in other areas as well, where you don't have a conflict of interest, and gain more experience in editing the project. It's always better when people get more interested in maintaining and expanding the project in general, rather than just only focusing on subjects or people that they have any sort of a personal investment in telling people about. And I hope that you assume good faith of us, and address the concerns that have been raised (also in good faith). --gurkubondinn 09:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A room full of people deciding my own story does not change my truth. Reality is, only I know exactly what happened, and I have stated my truth clearly. I appreciate your advice, however, I will no longer be participating on this platform. It is transparently clear that your moderation and gating have succumbed to AI detection to the point of losing touch with reality. If I could go back in-time and not participate with my initial work, I would have. It's been completely invalidated. Editor13002 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, that you haven't stated it clearly. I fully believe that you feel that you have (and I am not trying to invalidate you), but I wasn't exactly left with a whole lot of clarity after reading your responses last night. For example you were asked if you had written those sentences yourself and I don't recall you giving a clear answer to that (but maybe I'm wrong). It's not so much that people "people decided your story", as it was a reaction to how your responded to the concerns. Weather you or an AI wrote those sentences, they are not really ideal for Wikipedia. I honestly have to read them multiple times to understand what they are saying, so they can almost certainly be written in an easier-to-understand way. Phrases like "during a transformative period" and "reflected the expanding participation of women"[emphasis added] are very typical of AI-generated text, almost to the point of being boilerplate. Of course it is possible for an actual person to sit down and type out of the words "transformative" and "expanding", and those are not even very complicated words in and of themselves, but they have started occurring much more frequently in a Wikipedia text since the widespread availability of LLM chatbots (this is backed up by statistical analysis of hard data). And of course it also makes sense for someone with a background in law (I think, I know squat about American legal backgrounds apart from what I have seen on TV) and administration to be more likely to write that kind of prose. But I think that this would have gone very differently if you had responded to the concerns in a different way (with a different attitude). I routinely end up asking editors about possible AI use, and it also happens routinely that I pretty quickly figure out that I was wrong, because I generally listen when they address these concerns.

And you are completely correct, you are the only person that knows for sure how exactly these texts were produced. But unfortunately it is the principle here that it is on you to explain it if someone raises concerns. One of the things that concern me is how you created the pages in single edits. If you take a look at Draft:Leifur Muller (my draft that I mentioned earlier), you can see how I have been building it in small incremental edits. This is somewhat on purpose in a certain sense, because I want to show my work. It is not so much that I am afraid that I think someone will think that my (at best mediocre) writing is AI-generated, but I kind of dislike it when the first edit is just a whole complete article. That makes it harder to understand how someone has researched the topic, and how they have structured the article and why. More history is good, edits are cheap.

I obviously can't convince you to stay, and I'm not going to try. Naturally I want you to stay around, just as I want any other new editor to stay around (this is a fun hobby, believe it or not). But I would encourage you to take some time to process all of this, and then give addressing the concerns another shot. You are clearly capable of reasoning about this, and I think that you should do that. And learning is never a bad thing. --gurkubondinn 10:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

My answer can be found at the root of this discussion. I wrote

"Additionally, this is now the second time you’ve suggested that an AI tool is being used. No AI tool is being used.

Is there anything else I can clarify for you? " After that, my answer never changed.

Editor13002 (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but you never elaborated. That's what I am talking about, you never explained to us why. I know that it sucks, I wish it wasn't like this, but we have multiple people telling us every day that something isn't AI when it is (this morning, I even had one notification from someone saying exactly that about something that I know for a fact was most certainly AI-generated). And I never accused you of having used an LLM to generate these article (and today I have only plainly said what I believe happened, which shouldn't be understood as an accusation). It can take a little bit of time to build up some community trust, but we try to approach everyone in good faith regardless. I still think that you should address these concerns in some more detail (also the concerns of a possible conflict of interest), and while I can't speak for anyone other than myself, I am more then prepared to listen. --gurkubondinn 10:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

am more then prepared to listen

but not right now, I am running late for something. --gurkubondinn 10:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You say good faith, But I define it as Bad-Faith Trolling. The word 'Slop' stood out. That's when I lost my patients. Editor13002 (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Editors are more than welcome to contribute to and enhance these articles, even if they want to improve what they view as 'AI slop.' However, I simply ask that you respect reality while doing so. My answer reflects that reality. Editor13002 (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Diff/1356528171. Let me know if I misunderstood, and I'll withdraw the request. --gurkubondinn 09:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, I went and created an account at Grammarly because I figured that I should get a better understanding of how this tool works. Can you share with me how you use it? How do I use "non-generative mode" that you talked about? There are a few options under "Feature customization" -> "Generative AI" in the settings, but none of them seem to turn off generative AI as a whole, only certain features. I'm currently using the free version, so I don't have access to all of the features. --gurkubondinn 08:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

After playing around with this tool for a little bit, I can definitely see some value in some of the features. But I don't like how the majority of them seem very prone to making rather substantial changes to the texts that I have given it. The grammatical proofreading is a nice feature though, and I like how it will only highlight the errors without actually making any changes to the text. There is a button to "accept" the changes though, it doesn't happen automatically. --gurkubondinn 08:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like it only works well if the end user has good discretion. Any tool is only as effective as the person wielding it. When you have a powerful tool, it requires good judgment and a responsible approach to get the best results without creating a mess. Guess we're on the same page. Editor13002 (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

And any moderately powerful tool can be very dangerous in the hands of someone with just enough knowledge to wield it like a blunt axe. --gurkubondinn 09:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If you use Grammarly "Classic" it doesn't have AI. Navigate to the Feature Customization page, and toggle the "Generative AI" settings completely off. Editor13002 (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean these four toggles?

• "Brainstorm, write, and rewrite with Grammarly’s generative AI assistance"
• "Show Generative AI on text selection"
• "Show Generative AI for quick replies"
• "Show recent prompt history"

What is "Grammarly Classic"? I haven't seen that anywhere in the interface. Is that an actual name of a different product/app, or just some kind of informal name? --gurkubondinn 08:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I also turned off the "Use bundles for spelling, punctuation, and grammar suggestions in the same sentence" toggle. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with AI, but I like the idea of getting suggestions more than having it alter the text for me, I'd prefer to do that myself. --gurkubondinn 08:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hah, now it won't let me open the document that I was using before and says "Use bundles for spelling, punctuation, and grammar suggestions in the same sentence". So I created a new document, and the interface looks slightly different! --gurkubondinn 08:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I like this mode much better than the default one. I'm not entirely convinced that it does not use LLMs, but it seems much less prone to altering the text. Ideally, I would like to only have the grammar checking part enabled. The only thing that I miss from the other mode is the "source of text" feature, that did show you what was copied in vs. what was typed in the Grammarly editor. --gurkubondinn 08:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That's Grammarly "Classic". That's how Grammarly operated before they introduced LLM. I've been using Grammarly for 6+ years. When I first started, it was primarily a standalone grammar, spelling, and style checker. Editor13002 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

LLMs have exited since before ChatGPT (and others) enabled widespread access to them through chatbots. They can absolutely be useful tools, but I really dislike how they are being crammed into everything these days, and I especially dislike how there are chatbots everywhere now. The "New Grammarly" even had a chatbot in the editor. This "Grammarly Classic" mode seems genuinely useful to me, but it does have the capability to alter the text, just not nearly as much as the newer thing.

On another note, I could have sworn that both MS Words and LibreOffice Writer (probably as OpenOffice Writer) used to have grammar checkers, that would underline incorrect grammar usage with a dotted green line. But it doesn't seem to be in the current version of LibreOffice Writer, and I can't really find much evidence of this.. Weird. --gurkubondinn 09:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not big on AI either. Although, I've been told in person I may be one. Editor13002 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janet Elizabeth Rieder-Henderson 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/Janet Elizabeth Rieder-Henderson 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.

Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

How utterly disrespectful. Editor13002 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Why did you move the article to draft space, @Editor13002? Would you like to work on it (without using AI) in draft space? --gurkubondinn 14:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rudolph Charles "R.C." Rieder 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/Rudolph Charles "R.C." Rieder 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.

Tacyarg (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Arthur "Dick" Maddy 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/Richard Arthur "Dick" Maddy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

M kuhner (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dean A. Robb 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/Dean A. Robb until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

M kuhner (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)