User talk:Gaiacoyote

Were you assisted by an LLM in writing this? lp0 on fire () 17:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I certainly used an Internet browser to seek references and such, and I suppose nowadays that's all LLM, but otherwise it was just slugging through it the old way, using my own pictures and being guided by many years experience as a naturalist. Gaiacoyote (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sorry to bother you. I only asked because the bulleted lists and slightly self-aware link to iNaturalist are common signs of LLM writing. I can completely see how that could be ordinary human error though; hopefully Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid will explain the actual issues. On the whole, it's a good article; thanks for contributing! lp0 on fire () 17:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see article on Guillaume_Nissole on French Wikipedia. Nomen ambiguum (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Nomen ambiguum. That looks like a good bet. I see that there's a document in Portuguese describing the formation of an American botanist, presumably a Brazilian who studied at Montpellier, under Guillaume Nissole, and was much influenced. If you're interested, you can search for Nissole in the PDF at https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2019/hdl_10803_668210/jmo1de1.pdf

I'll work that into the Wiki page. ~2026-27173-7 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Gaiacoyote, Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This refers to the article Panchlora azteca, which you created on 24 February 2026. You have cited iNaturalist and ResearchGate as sources. However, these are not generally considered reliable. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#iNaturalist and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Academic repositories for further information and guidance. Regards. QEnigma 论 17:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Gaiacoyote (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Rtpaz. An edit that you recently made to Cipura campanulata 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. Rtpaz (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Rtpaz.

I assure you that the only language model creating Cipura campanulata was in my own head. I worked two days on that page, which might be reflected in my sandbox log, and access dates in my citations. You are not the first to accuse me of this and if there is a way of assuring future reviewers that I am not using an LLM I'd be happy to know about it. I'll now translate that page into Spanish, where I stand to be accused of reviewers of not respecting copyright laws by doing my own free interpretation of the English page I just did, and using my own images on both pages. If you know of any way I can end what seems like continuing harassment for working hard on creating pages I'd be glad to have your insight. Gaiacoyote (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what made Rtpaz suspect LLM use, but your use of bullet points in description sections made me suspicious of LLM use. And your use of bold text seems to me not allowed under MOS:BOLD. A description with bullet points and bolded terms such as leaves is more in the style of a field guide than an encyclopedia. I do understand why a field guide would bold leaves, but I don't think a field guide or an encyclopedia would bold wildflower or American tropics. Plantdrew (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gaiacoyote. Thank you for your work on Vickianthus alamanii. Another editor, Rosiestep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Your use of bold markup is suspicious of content 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. I see at least one other comment on your talkpage addressing this issue so I'm curious as to why you would repeat it.

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

Rosiestep (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:

Hi.

Yes several times I have been accused of using LLM, in both the English and Spanish sections. I have replied to some of them but I remember at least one instance in which my reply failed, though I forget in which language; I'm in an area of very erratic Internet connection (small village in central Mexico), and I think as I wrote a reply, my connection broke, and I couldn't find the message again. Anyway, I work hard on my pages and format them as best I can to make the information understandable, and verifiable, and sometimes that means highlighting the key word in a section. When I search for obscure information, which I did a lot for the Vickianthus alamanii page you reviewed, because it's little treated in the literature, most citations my browser comes up with are wrong and misleading, but also it finds publications I'd never find on my own, so I use the browser's AI function, but no other AI. If you can suggest something I can do to make clear to everyone that I'm not having AI do my work, I'd appreciate it; it's sort of discouraging to work so hard and consistently have to deal with accusations of using AI and, at least the Spanish section, copyright infringement, because I translate my own pages. If you look at my iNaturalist observation on Vickianthus alamanii at https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/221290882 you can see where I have posted the same pictures appearing on my wiki page. And if you're worried that I've stolen pictures and information for that page, too, then on my own website (all public domain) you can see the original place where my pictures were published, at https://www.backyardnature.net/mexnat/qto/vernonia.htm In the Wiki article I have not cited information on my page exactly because I'm trying to avoid encourage claims that I am using AI and stealing other people's information. But, come to think of it, in the context of today's realities, I really can't even prove I'm not AI myself, not using it to do my work, and that I really took the pictures and generated the information (which browsers habitually cite as a primary source in their own AI replies). In fact, on a certain level, maybe we're all AI to begin with and we can't prove that, either, but that's another discussion altogether. Gaiacoyote (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for what you do around here.

The only issue I addressed regarding the potential use of ai-generated content was due to the inappropriate use of boldface, such as the word "Mexico" in the first sentence. If you look at other articles within Category:Vernonieae, you can see when bold mark-up is appropriate and when it isn't. Note: I'm only addressing an issue on EN-WP, as all language Wikipedias have their own policies. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

OK. Gaiacoyote (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw the note you left on the talk page of Funastrum bilobum. I think the use of bullet points in the description section is one thing that might make people suspicious of LLM use. The sentence "Here are some field marks helping to distinguish Funastrum bilobum from similar species" is not written in an encyclopedic register, and the more conversational register being used might be something an LLM would come up with.

Not related to LLM suspicions, but I've never heard the term "field marks" as a botanist, and that article is mostly about birds. Plantdrew (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Plantdrew.

Thanks for your insights on why people continue thinking I'm using LLM. "Not written in an encyclopedic register" probably frames the discussion properly, and it's something I've paid attention to. My goal always has been to help inform regular people who have enough curiosity to look at pages like those I produce about obscure, unknown species. I use the term "field marks" because in my own life it introduced a concept that was a big help for me when I first began learning about about Nature. Pay attention to field marks, get the ID, then look up the name and learn all about it. Nietzsche said that most people don't see something until it has a name (my loose translation), and I think "field marks" is a great name. And who is the arbiter of what this "encyclopedic register" is? I've read enough about the history of Wikipedia to know that there are opposing schools of thought on just about every issue, and I'm of the school that Wikipedia wants to inform regular people who use regular, friendly sounding language. One last reason I'm stuck in this kind of thinking is that I'm an old man heartsick about what's happening in my native land with Trumpism, and my adopted homes of Germany with its neo Nazism and Mexico with its cartels, plus all the garbage and hallucinating, lying AI assistants on the Internet. We're all in a real mess, and at the heart of the mess is people every day being more cynical about information itself, and with good reason. To me, using terms like "field marks" is an effort to lower the anxiety level people might have about any source of information.

Sorry for the prolixity and the lack of helpful suggestions; I know you're engaged with a lot.

Best wishes. Gaiacoyote (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Gaiacoyote. I have a couple remarks that could go in a new section but might as well be placed here.

The term "field marks" is pretty specific to ornithology, if only from tradition (see e.g., jizz (birding)). I more frequently see just "signs to look for" or references to taxonomic (dichotomous) keys in botany (and mammalogy).

It's unfortunate that your writing got labeled as AI-generated, but this happens when reviewers are inundated with work (currently upwards of 20,000 unreviewed new articles) that requires exponentially less effort to create than it does to clean up. Patrollers are looking for every possible sign of LLM use to identify problematic content before it becomes ingrained misinformation. This inevitably leads to false positives.

Your new articles are a blessing on Wikipedia in this environment. One look at https://www.backyardnature.net was all I needed to confirm that there was a real human doing this work. My one selfish ask is if you have any interest in writing about zacatón grasses, since they're of particular interest to me. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Reconrabbit.

Thanks for your insights, and I'll try to remember (78 years old) to use other terms than field marks, though in my own life field marks have been a very big deal and as a young person an enormously helpful concept upon which to build a life of nature study. This is the first time a Wiki editor in the English part has said something nice about my work with Wiki, nothing but complaints and suspicions until now. I guess your zacatón is a Muhlenbergia. I've done some of them I think. I only do pages on Wiki where already on iNaturalist I've placed my images and info, and the IDs have been vetted by others, resulting in "research grade" ID (my username jimmex).

Finally, thanks for your efforts on Wiki. You're a blessing, using your term, to old men appreciative an occasional kind word.

Jim Gaiacoyote (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)