User talk:Gnomingstuff

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Gnomingstuff! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:38, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Badhan, Sanaag

Hello. It seems you missed my comment on Talk:Badhan, Sanaag#AI. Please reply. Freetrashbox (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I left a comment on Talk:Badhan, Sanaag#AI. Please reply. Freetrashbox (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems you’ve forgotten to respond to the message above... Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed your edit history, and while you are trying to eliminate AI edits from Wikipedia and I am trying to utilize them, I believe there is no difference in our stance toward removing unreliable information from the platform. There are several issues with AI editing, but in my view, the primary one is that AI text contains many errors; currently, AI is poor at finding appropriate sources, and depending on the site, it cannot read the content of URLs. Using the stylistic quirks of AI text as a clue to find such inappropriate descriptions is a good approach. However, I do not recommend making that information public on Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing as you are doing, because it can be easily bypassed by simply having the AI read the descriptions on Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing beforehand. While you might possess a secret, ultimate method of identification not listed there, an AI could probably bypass that as an afterthought anyway. What I recommend instead is that you obtain Wikipedia:Edit filter rights. If you configure the edit filter properly, you can add edits to a list every time an edit with a specific writing pattern occurs, and since the filter can be set to invisible for anyone other than filter editors, this information cannot be exploited. Please do consider this option. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

AI generated article

Hi, I just noticed this edit from last November. I would have appreciated a message on my talk too

Anyway, I'd like to clarify a few things. At the time, I wasn't aware that using AI to help with drafting text was not permitted here. That said, everything I added to the article was translated from the corresponding it.wiki one, of which I am the original author of a substantial portion of the content (i wrote that text based on various reliable sources, not AI slop), so fortunately there are no hallucinations; I only used AI to improve the translation, or at least this is what I believed.

I'll go through the article again and rewrite the text. Thank you for taking the time to review it. –yeagvr · ✉ 22:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the update. Our AI policies weren't the same in November as they are now.

Since you mentioned translating, there are special and a bit more permissive rules for AI translations, those are mentioned at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation:

When translating text from a non-English Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia mainspace, you may only use these tools when:

- You are skilled enough in both the origin language and English to confirm the translation is accurate;

- You have checked for, and removed, all AI hallucinations and other core content policy violations;

- You have checked the sources in the origin language article and you are sure the translated text reflects them fairly, and each fact or claim likely to be challenged is supported by an inline citation to a reliable source; and

- You have complied with all the usual translation processes including terms of use-compliant attribution. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Editing concerns

Hello, thanks for reaching out.

I'm writing in response to your message. English is not my native language, and when contributing to articles I take more time to use appropriate vocabulary, rather than relying on basic words. Because of this, some paragraphs may appear more formal or sophisticated, but that's simply a reflection of the effort I try to put into editing.

The sources I use come from reputable European and Slovak news outlets. Before adding information, I summarize their text in my own words. Many Slovak expressions and terms do not translate directly into English, therefore, I often have to choose the most accurate phrases available, sometimes at the cost of simplicity. This can make the text look like it was generated using artificial intelligence, when in reality it's the result of translating across online dictionaries.

If you wish to proceed with your concerns and keep the warning text box at the top of article, that is ultimately your decision. I have explained my position and the reasoning behind my writing style.

That said, I appreciate you going through Wikipedia articles. Keep up the good work! Gabriel1055 (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The Siege of Caffa

im just commenting on ur side u r correct cuz nobody cares if it was diverse or not what matters was the background not jews Muslims and turks Noam Elyada (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

no one really minds abt thetraders and merchants in the area

Farewell

Siege of Caffa Noam Elyada (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

AI tags

Hello, I responded on the Horizon Call of the Mountain talk page, but since you tagged other articles, I figured a central discussion would be better, whether here, my talk page, or elsewhere. All I know is I haven't used AI to help with any part of Wikipedia, so it is a surprise to me to see these articles get tagged. -- ZooBlazer 01:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you using tools such as Grammarly, Quillbot, etc.? Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope. All I have done with these articles is gather sources/moved relevant info/refs from other articles in their respective series. Then I read through the refs and just copy relevant paragraphs/sentences, usually in a word doc or my sandbox and try to cleanly combine all the info together. This has apparently resulted in some of the issues you brought up being cases of synthesizing.

I've also been trying to incorporate info I received in the Horizon Zero Dawn FAC in terms of not using peacock terms, using "use" instead of "utilize" and avoid "noted" and its variations, while also trying to follow MOS:FOUND, so I am not sure if any of that has been an issue. -- ZooBlazer 03:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ice on Fire edit

Hello, I saw you removed the revised lead I wrote for Ice on Fire, claiming it was generated (or seemed like it was generated) with AI. I can assure you it was not, I despise generative AI in all its forms. If this is because it was a large edit all added to the article at once (I don't remember, it might have been), that would be because I had worked on this article in my sandbox prior to copy-and-pasting it into the main article. Thanks Elephantranges (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks, on taking a second look I agree -- there are, however, some promotional tone/synthesis issues (which was what made me stumble across the page). Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, great! And please feel free to let me know what looked suspicious so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk page revert

I've just seen your edit to the page Talk:Trade Centre Group. My immediate thought was "What??? Why the hell didn't someone do this years ago?" It's about as gross an example of misuse of a talk page as I have ever seen, and it's absurd that it's been left in place for almost four and a half years. JBW (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks - there is a truly enormous amount of stuff like this on talk pages and it sticks around forever, I lost track of the number of times I've had to request oversight of things even Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I said "it's absurd that it's been left in place for almost four and a half years", but I've seen even more absurd cases of stuff being left in place for much longer. More disturbing, though, is the fact that on occasions I've seen stuff that's been left in articles for years despite being absolutely obviously nonsense. JBW (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit filter false positives

Some of your edits tagging articles for AI are triggering filter 1346. I reported this at WP:EFFPR. Including "oaicitation" in the reason for the AI tag should not be triggering the AI citation filter. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

surprise, I was using AI the WHOLE TIME!

(in all seriousness thanks for the heads up) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Apology

I don't exactly recall which sections of the Article Patsho an AI is used to improve the grammar. But what I exactly remember is the subtopic on organization, that's the part where AI is used to improve the Article not knowing AI isn't allowed at all. How can I improve this Article to keep it or to bring to compliance? Should I request for full deletion of the article instead?

Also there are separate articles of different topics Under the subsection of organization, which are improved using AI, please delete those write-ups.

Thanks for your help Admin ExfactoLexander (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, no need to apologize, our AI guidelines have changed several times in the past few months. The current policies are at WP:NEWLLM.

Definitely don't request deletion of the article, the village is unquestionably notable and these edits are recent. You probably have a better idea of which parts of the article were affected, so the easiest thing might be to undo whatever edits that AI tools were used for. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks Admin. ExfactoLexander (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

(Just to be clear I'm not an admin, I just do cleanup work.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay okay. I am rewriting the parts where AI is used. Please remove the AI tag if you are satisfied and the article meets your standards. ExfactoLexander (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:OS

Hi there, when you spot someone disclosing a phone number or something similar on a talk page, please send that to OS. We suppress those. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I brought this up last year and was told not to do this for older edits as this would draw attention to them. Unfortunately I am about a month and a half behind on doing talk page cleanup, so until I catch up the reversions are mostly going to be older edits. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ideally we'd get to things within a month, but just over a month is still in the "do OS" window. Really old stuff, yeah, there's no use. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Another one: if someone makes it clear that they're <16, you can send that stuff in to the list as well. And thanks! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

AI Reverts

Please double check your reverts when you are reverting AI crap. 100% appreciate the removal of the AI bs, but just make sure you aren't reverting good edits with the bad. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I missed something, did you have a specific article in mind? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It happens! No worries. Special:Diff/1360018148/1360021245 was the latest. There were a couple others. Nothing major tho. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This continues to happen. You really need to be more careful. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely do not know what is producing these, sorry. Every time I revert, I compare every single change that occurred after the edit in question, and then transfer over every single change -- unless that change was made to the AI text, because there's no way to restore cosmetic edits to text that I am removing. The other reason I do not transfer edits over is if they are unverifiable information, probably added in the AI text. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Like what do I have to do to get you (and everyone fucking else) to believe me here, screen record myself? Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Lets settle down... All you need to do is preview your edits.... You will see big red error messages showing the bad parameters... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Uh... I haven't seen any of those recently. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/1360762905. If you preview that edit, you don't see any errors? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I just get a note that all edits must follow BLP. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

But please for the love of god if it's just one parameter, please just fix it, don't revert the whole thing and restore the AI text. I am trying to get through a list of six fucking thousand articles here, and since I have been deleting them from the list as I go, I will not be able to find it again. I understand that it creates extra work, but I am also trying to get through extra work created for me.

And, like, also, I apologize, but while it's important to standardize infobox parameters, it is in the grand scheme of things not as large of a policy and content issue as AI-generated text, and not reader facing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I see the issue. Here is the exact thing I am seeing:

https://imgur.com/a/yQ7UfL5

In this case, since the nationality infobox parameter was added after the AI edits, and it did not seem unverified by the pre-AI sources, I restored it, so as to not overwrite other people's work. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You are only looking at the diffs and not WP:PREVIEW as I have told you multiple times. At this point I have fixed no fewer than 15 of your reverts that you are doing without checking. I am done fixing your edits. Moving forward I will simply revert them when they break the page. If you cannot figure out how to preview your work, that is on you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Awesome. Yet another person obstructing AI cleanup. Amazing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This really isn't that hard. Freaking preview your edits and stop breaking things. I'm done feeding you. Stop playing the victim and actually check the edits you are making. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It also isn't that hard to fix one (1) (uno) infobox parameter.

What you are saying is that it is OK to keep AI-generated content around. This is against guidelines. It is certainly more against guidelines than keeping a deprecated infobox parameter around. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08, reverting a large change because of one broken infobox parameter is disruptive. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

When that same issue has been caused by the same user over and over again, I will simply revert rather than continuing to fix their broken work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said before, this is effectively re-adding AI-generated content to an article, which is a violation of WP:NOLLM. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is still disruptive. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: let me try to walk back and diffuse this situation. A couple of points...

I'm sorry this conversation turned so hostile (for lack of a better word). That was not my intent. Hoping we can start fresh.

I 100% appreciate your AI/LLM reverts. Let me be clear on that point. I HATE LLM content on here and am also a fan of getting it out. So please don't misunderstand my actions as somehow being pro LLM. That is not the case. NOLLM is more a passion project for you than it is for me, but I am certainly no fan of it.

My passion project is tracking unknown parameters as these are often sources of vandalism. Now obviously your edits are NOT vandalism, not saying they are. But when unknown parameters are introduced accidentally, it gets in the way of tracking intentional vandalism. Now accidents happen. I myself have introduced unknown parameters and failed to preview. NO ONE is faultless.

Let me say what I should have said better from the get go, when you are doing your AI reverts, rather than just reverting or clicking "restore this version" please also check that the version you are restoring doesn't contain bad code. Some of these cases are minor (restoring a non-working parameter like |nationality=) but in some cases you are accidentally restoring a parameter that no longer works and therefore removes information from the page. For example if you restore to a version using |birthdate= instead of |birth_date=, that persons birthday, which was working before, is now blanked from the page. This a minor example, but hopefully you understand. So, all I am asking, is please check your restores with WP:PREVIEW. If you have introduced unknown parameters, you will get a preview warning and it can easily be fixed right away.

Moving forward, if one slips through, I will do my best not to just revert your entire edit. I only do this for repeat offenders or when the edit is exclusively unknown parameter addition. Given this chat, as long as I recognize your username when I review the diff, I will not just knee-jerk revert your edits. Forgive me in advance if I accidentally do and I will forgive you for accidentally letting an unknown parameter slip through.

Keep up the great work fighting AI/LLM. If I can every help with that fight, let me know. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Aren't you using AWB or something to do this somewhat automatically? Can't you just run that again, instead of reinstating LLM crap that someone has put in the time and effort to find and revert? You don't always look at the editor (and thus preview) when you are reverting stuff like this. For example I do a lot of it through Twinkle and other userscripts, only needing to open the editor (and preview) when I have to do manual surgery to remove LLM crap that can't be easily reverted anymore. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I really would prefer this discussion take place somewhere else, I don't have anything more to contribute to it Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Would like it noted that I came here to try to diffuse the situation and move forward. If you are not interested in that, then fine. But I came here in good faith to try to move forward as well as to compliment you on your good work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that, I just am trying to move forward with other work myself Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep doing your thing. If I can help, let me know. If anyone ELSE has questions, they are free to ping me directly in a separate discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

AI Flagging

You recently flagged AI on a page I created, WIFEY. The article was written and researched by me, I did however have AI check my grammar prior to posting. Also, the page has been edit by several people since I created this page some months back (including stuff by me I did not check with AI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanDiegoDan (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gibbula delgadensis

added a link pointing to Family (biology)

Oliveragemmula kieneri

added a link pointing to Family (biology)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks, you made me laugh

my dog started whistling almost made me choke on my coffee. that's great, I'm stealing it. Fixinathing (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Humble request

Hi! May I please remove the AI-detection marker you added? Do I have the permission to proceed? Article: Patsho ExfactoLexander (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding on the talk page for the article, please put article-related comments there Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The article is on Patsho village. ExfactoLexander (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I will put up there. ExfactoLexander (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi - there's no need to keep replying on my talk page for this as this is about the article, as it spams me with pings Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Specific feedback only, please

Please do NOT send me further messages unless you have a concrete, specific issue with my edits.

If you believe there is a factual error, a problem with my sources, or a policy violation, please point out the exact passage or citation you are referring to so we can discuss it constructively. Generic assumptions or vague impressions about how my text was written are NOT helpful. Galilean-moons (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you using AI? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That question is not relevant to Wikipedia's editorial standards, and the fact that you're asking it instead of responding to the argument I previously made tells me everything. Whether or not any tool was used in producing an edit has no bearing on whether that edit contains accurate information supported by reliable sources. Mine does. Your messages have not identified a single factual error, a single unsourced claim, or a single failure to meet editorial standards. Until you do, there is nothing here to address. Galilean-moons (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOLLM. Read it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

AI issue

Hi I am StillLearningEditing. You left a message on my talk page about me using ai on my recent edit. My recent edits should be on three different articles two of which are about TV series. On those two article, I used information from Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu after translating them in English. For translation, I used google translate. And changed it a bit in the neutral tone Wikipedia uses by myself. I didn't use any form of ai. But I have used the entire info on those articles. And I made some mistakes there. But other editors corrected it. Again I didn't use any ai for this. Is it because I wrote all the things I translated in the articles? Hope you can reach out to me about this again. Thank you. StillLearningEditing (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

They did the same to me despite the fact that I am unquestionably against AI use. All of my sources that I used reflect this and are factual as far as I am aware (they are academic and peer-reviewed). I would also like some answers. ADrews05 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I already responded to you. Please do not spam my talk page about something I already addressed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe given edits like Special:Diff/1316486469, which are textbook AI output. Did you use tools like DeepL or Grammarly? Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't care if you find it hard to believe but I didn't use any ai. https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%9B%BD%E8%89%B2%E8%8A%B3%E5%8D%8E/62083421?fromModule=lemma_inlink#5

I don't know what DeepL is. I have seen ads of grammarly but never used it. I only used google translate. StillLearningEditing (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

MfD on Wikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI use

Im sorry about that move and would have voted oppose. I think its unlikely the move would survive like this and agree it was baffling.

but doing an MfD is fairly WP:POINTY on a very useful essay you helped create. I hope you forgive this silliness and withdraw the mfd. as is, its unlikely to succeed anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention, I genuinely do not want it around anymore, it is part of a larger disillusionment Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gnomingstuff, I'd like to echo the idea I saw elsewhere that if you are feeling disillusioned a break may help. Even just slowing down on work that feels like a chore can make a difference. If your concern is that the AI cleanup backlog will grow in your absence, that should not be a significant factor in your decision making. Backlogs aren't any one editor's responsibility, and if it grows it grows. I've taken similar breaks before, sometimes pivoting to a more enjoyable activity onwiki (I have a few topics I'd enjoy writing about if I need a break hanging around in my back pocket), sometimes even finding things to do offwiki. I haven't !voted on the MfD and give strong consideration to your view as the original and main author, but it's a decent piece of work and I think it would be a shame to lose it. CMD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

How can i not make my article look ai generated

hi its wolfknightmaheeb,my first and only article so far has been flagged for being AI generated which i can assure was written completely by me. I had taken help from chatgpt to rephrase a few sentences here and there but i couldve changed that if i was notified and how can images that i specifically took from his seminars be AI generated why did those images get reverted too. Anyway i dont expect that article to be given back to me I'll write it all over again but do you have any suggestions on how can i not make it seem AI generated? I even ran zerogpt on my paragraphs before uploading them. Oh and also may i add that this is a very niche topic that doesnt have much information online so most of my information is based on my live interactions with him. If that means that this shouldnt be written on Wikipedia please tell me that too I'll just not go Through all that work just for it to get deleted again Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I had taken help from chatgpt to rephrase a few sentences here and there

This is not allowed on Wikipedia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

but the rest was written by me can you atleast revert the infobox and the headings, thanks Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who knows what parts of it used ChatGPT, so you are in a better position to do that than me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

um Alright thanks i guess Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, the thing though is that I am not a mind reader, and I do not know what parts of the article you used ChatGPT for. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

yes i understand im sorry if it came as though i was being aggressive, i assume the fact that im a non native contributed to my writing looking like AI :/ Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT was what made the writing look like AI, because that's what ChatGPT does.

One thing I do want to mention is that there are Wikipedias in lots of different languages, and a lot of them would really appreciate more people helping out. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah i wanted to contribute to the wiki page on this thats in my native language thanks for the reminder, appreciate the effort :) Wolfknightmaheeb (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for working so hard to keep AI off Wikipedia. I too have run across editors who think as long as they are "good" at using AI, it's ok. It is never ok. Please don't get discouraged. Take a break if needed, but please keep up the excellent work. Masterhatch (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Information technology management

Hi

I don't understand why my content was removed based on the assumption that it was LLM-generated on Information technology management. This article is the result of approximately one week of intensive research and writing. I personally compiled information from reliable academic sources, including peer-reviewed journals, university publications, and official standards documents (ISO, ISACA, etc.). All sources are properly cited in the article. I have extensively used internal Wikipedia links (wikification) to connect the article to other relevant pages, which demonstrates familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

In fact, the content was added between May 18 and May 26 (please see the article's history). This clearly shows that the content was not generated by an LLM, as it was built upon over several days through multiple edits

I understand that Wikipedia has strict policies against LLM-generated content, and I support those policies. I request that you re-evaluate my content based sources, and academic quality, rather than assuming it was LLM-generated simply because it is comprehensive and well-structured.

Additionally, I have also written the following related articles:

• Bachelor of Information technology management
• Master of Science in Information Technology Management
• PhD in Information Technology Management

I ask you to reconsider the removal and restore the article, or at least point out specific sections that you believe require revision so I can address them directly.

I created a template for this article and for all related topics in Information Technology Management. Unfortunately, you have also deleted that from the article.

Furthermore, some of the content was based on references and sources that are already used in other Wikipedia articles, such as the Information Systems, IT infrastructure, Information security articles and other related articles. These were also deleted by you based on the same incorrect assumption that they were LLM-generated, despite being properly sourced from established Wikipedia contentBalash-Vologases (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you using tools such as Grammarly, DeepL, Quillbot, etc? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I do not use any of these tools. I write all content manually and rely on my academic background and expertise in Information Technology Management. Any grammar or style improvements are done by me personally.

May I ask why you are asking this question? Is there something specific in my writing that has led you to believe I am using such tools?

Which part of the content I added gave you this impression? Information Technology Management is widely taught in universities, and I improved parts of the article using those academic resources. Many universities have dedicated pages and articles on this subject. Balash-Vologases (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Because the text reads exactly like all of the rest of the thousands of AI-generated edits we get. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concern, I would point out that many legitimate academic texts especially in fields like Information Technology Management, naturally share similar characteristics with LLM-generated content. I used some content from the IT infrastructure and Information system article for parts of my contribution.

Also the academic and university publishers like<^[1][2]'^[3]

I also want to point out that I cannot simply use the exact same text from those sources, as that would constitute a copyright violation. I had to carefully read each source, extract the relevant information, and then rewrite it in my own words while maintaining academic accuracy and proper citations. This entire process took more than 10 days of my time, and there was simply no other way I could have completed this work. Balash-Vologases (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Notification of ANI discussion

Hello Gnomingstuff,

I am writing to inform you that I have started a discussion regarding the removal of content in the article Information technology management and the related template, which you reverted based on the assumption that the content was LLM-generated.

The discussion is taking place at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) here. Balash-Vologases (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For removing so much AI slop from Wikipedia. Your efforts are appreciated by at least some of us. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You're doing great work

Don't let the bastards grind you down, GS. I know you're prone to this kind of disillusionment when people push back against your cleanup efforts; but you are one of our most knowledgable and prolific AI cleaners. Make no mistake that the encyclopedia would be a much worse place were it not for your efforts. There will always be people who'll complain and kick up a fuss when you challenge their content, but you mustn't let it cause you to feel that the whole mission of AI cleanup is pointless. We've made great strides in strengthening our AI policies and guidelines, in no small part because of your own effort. Take a break and stop doing AI cleanup if you need to, just don't let yourself buckle under the pressure. Athanelar (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to drop a barnstar too, but since you've already got a good supply for the short term, I will just second everything that Athanelar says here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Hello, I saw the list of warnings on your user page, but I thought I'd interrupt your tasks to give a barnstar for all the work you do. I've seen you fix things on my watchlist many times, and believe you've cleaned up after me on more than one occasion. I wanted to let you know it isn't unnoticed or unappreciated. Wish we had an army of WikiGnomes like you defending the Wiki. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Madalena do Mar

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note that approximately 95% of articles published over the last two years have been generated with the assistance of AI. This does not pose any issue, provided that the information is accurate, maintains an objective tone, and is supported by relevant references—as is the case with this article. Could you please specify exactly which references or sections of the article you find inaccurate? Furthermore, it has been noted that your disruptive and biased activity is not limited to Portuguese articles but extends to others as well. If you are unable to maintain neutrality and professionalism, it would be best to refrain from editing Wikipedia articles." ~2026-36818-07 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

article is correct but this guy have some personal problem Calhetan77 (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

approximately 95% of articles published over the last two years have been generated with the assistance of AI. blatantly false. This does not pose any issue, provided that the information is accurate, maintains an objective tone, and is supported by relevant references have you read WP:NOLLM?

In conclusion, fuck off. Fermiboson (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

not sure this is called for, even though the comment is clearly AI (many indicators, but for one, they didn't bother to remove the quotation mark at the end) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Cathy Caruth

You slapped an "AI-generated" tag on the entire article and you had no business doing that. No specific passages, diffs, or examples were ever pointed to. Just a blanket accusation with zero evidence. That kind of move directly violates WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. You don't get to cast aspersions about an article being machine-written without actually showing where the problems are. If something genuinely looks off, raise it with specific diffs instead of tagging the whole page. Everything is meticulously sourced with supporting quotations in the notes section.

• Well, did you use AI or not? Yes or no. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your question assumes bad faith. See WP:AGF as noted above. Enakpat18 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I am asking you a question. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The question assumes bad faith in violation of WP:AGF as noted above. Therefore, I won't respond. Enakpat18 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Talkpage notice

Hey there. Responding to your note on my talkpage re LLM use, and the tags on the articles. While I agree that I did use it smoothen out the wording for easy reading (within WP:LLM limits), I disagree with the tags. The text/facts were put together by me, and carefully reviewed after rewording, and so are the references. You will notice that in some of the articles tagged, even the photos are by myself, as I make effort to physically visit the subjects I write about. I work in the energy/infrastructure industry of Sri Lanka, so the articles I write are created with care. If the single-edit article creation is what flagged this, you can see that most of the articles I created since well over a decade are like this (well before commercial AI existed), because I have the articles saved in .txt drafts on my PC until I am happy to publish. Hope this clarifies? May I ask you to remove tags on this and this? Rehman 04:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

smoothen out the wording for easy reading (within WP:LLM limits)

If I or anyone else can tell that AI was used, it isn't within those limits. LLM use is permitted only for basic copyediting, i.e., fixing typos or punctuation. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. Your tags on the live articles warn of "hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references." All of it obviously not applicable here. WP:LLM clearly states "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing" (also note the link). What am I missing here? Rehman 04:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"Smoothing out wording" is not basic copyediting. Basic copyediting refers to things like turning "Teh dog is brown" to "The dog is brown" or "The dog are brown" to "The dog is brown" or structural changes to make it readable. It's not for changing "The dog is brown" to "According to contemporary reports in media, the dog could be characterized as brown."

As for the template, it's a standard template, and the description is simply there to inform of some of the reasons why LLM usage has been almost entirely banned by the English Wikipedia community outside of two very limited exceptions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on Gnomingstuff's behalf. I hear you, and wont argue against your point, as you probably clearly have more experience in the area. My problem is however, what is the problem here, when the text is fully human vetted and crossed checked? I was going to add/ask if "According to contemporary reports in media, the dog could be characterized as brown" is a bad thing, but then I do agree that it is a bad thing, though it is not the case with the articles in question. I want to remove the tags, be it standard or not, because it is misleading and does not apply to these pages, but I'd like to hear from the OP first. Rehman 14:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Following guidelines is not optional. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, agreed (and agreed). This area is new to me and we learn something new everyday. For the pages already written, can I remove the tags? Rest assured a lot of effort was put into those, and they are 100% human checked. As I mentioned in the other link, I have been writing for nearly 2 decades here on wiki, and you can be assured nothing malicious is intended here. I don't think there is any bloated wordings, but happy to remove if you spot any. Rehman 14:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marutswa Forest, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bushbuck was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate all you do

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For amazing perseverance in a very tough job. M kuhner (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks. Defending against the avalanche of AI slop on Wikipedia is something I rarely have the energy to do these days, so I'm very glad to see others willing to enter the fray - and endure all the crap they get as a result. ~2026-37183-96 (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Geetha Johri

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

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • NDTV Correspondent (30 July 2010). "Who is Geeta Johri?". NDTV. {{cite web}}: |author1= has generic name (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) 05:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This was in the previous version of the text; I didn't add it. I am doing AI cleanup, not babysitting the refs of god only knows who from god only knows when. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Hello @Gnomingstuff Thanks for your automatically generated generic message about AI in my text. Have you thought of attaching

This user runs a bot, [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

to your messages? It might prevent you from receiving irritated replies? Cheers Derek J Moore (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not a fan of AI. But I do think that Wikipedia is feeding LLM's. See https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/07/15/introducing-wikivault-a-new-chapter-in-wikipedia-contributions-with-ai/ Derek J Moore (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you thought about not producing those irritated replies yourself? Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Why compain about the replies when somone offers a solution in good faith? dont complain about irritated replies when you refuse to action comments given about them. I received one of your, what I now recognise as, automatically generated messages and I would not have realised it was one if I had not looked through your talk page. If you don't want arguments and "irritated replies" why not try and make your actions less irritating instead of projecting that annoyance back onto other editors? Fin.Seaman (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Because I do not run a bot -- every single fucking one of these is manual, and I have been slogging away at this for more than two months now -- so the "solution" is not actually a solution and is instead yet another gripe left at my doorstep. If you don't like my having to make a talk page section for every AI-generated tag, then go complain at the people who told me to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Then don't respond so passive-aggresivly to comments like you did to Derek's. Why didn't you just inform him they were manual instead of obnoxiously telling him not to produce an irritated reply? Then people like me wouldn't be confused when they try to look into why they were accused of using AI and people like Derek don't falsley accuse you of using a bot. Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Because their comment is very clearly snarky retaliation for my doing the utterly abhorrent deed of flagging their AI-generated content as AI-generated. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

So you respond with more snarky retaliation? All that does is annoy people more. I came here only to ask about my own, allbeit more brief, message stating a similar thing, and this response only showed you in a negative light despite the good stuff you evidently do. I completly despise AI and it's usage by people who attempt to claim it as their own, but your response achieved nothing to clear up what was happening. Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I fully understand Gnomingstuff's frustration. LLM use has drastically increased recently. And users of LLMs get highly offended when accused of it. Then they try to justify the use of LLMs with remarks like, but it is sourced! Show me exactly which phrase is wrong! I only use it to copy edit! Show me how to make it look less like LLM! I don't know how to edit without LLM (I saw that excuse for the 1st time today)! Users don't seem to get why it is wrong. I'll excuse Gnomingstuff's snarkiness. Masterhatch (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Iran News Wire

Hi Gnomingstuff, I've revised the article since the AI tag was added and addressed a number of the concerns that were raised. For translation, I used Google Translate. The article itself was written by me. When you get a chance, could you please take another look? If you feel the tag is no longer needed, I'd appreciate its removal. Thanks for your time. ColTip (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

AI use

Thank you for your comment on my talk page and comments on the respective pages of Resettlement Camps. Please note that if AI was used to review grammar, the text and sources were drafted by myself, and posted from my files in one batch. Some text was repeated as the operation of Resettlement Camps was primary done by the same administration. If there are specific concerns, please let me know so that they can be fixed. Scotchorama (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "if" here?

At any rate please review our AI guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

A team worked for a few weeks preparing the articles to be posted. We posted them at the same time in order to ensure there were no broken links. As mentioned, if there are specific concerns regarding the sources or references, please let me know, as we had drafted the articles using the sources. Thank you. Scotchorama (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scotchorama, What do you mean a team wrote these articles? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean that we created a group including historians to add articles to Wikipedia as the topic of resettlement camps was not mentioned at all. We drafted articles and I posted them the same day, some using AI translation as we are not all native speakers. We were wrong. Now we request them to be deleted as Wikipedia is not the right forum for this information. Scotchorama (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

An error that I don't think a human could reasonably generate is, for example, found on Resettlement camp (Umsiedlungslager). The page cites "Schelklingen History and the Umsiedlungslager". Wikipedia. Retrieved 9 June 2026. many times. Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that cited wikipedia article does not mention the word "Umsiedlungslager" at all! How can that have happened? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The article states: "During World War II the town was a place of internment for POWs from Poland. In 1941 the St.-Konradihaus was requisitioned by the government and until 1945 was used as a resettlement camp (Umsiedlungslager (SS-Lager)) in order to reeducate people from Alsace." We had been working on a separate Schelklingen Lager camp article but ended up not adding one as we were working on text to update the overall Schelklingen page. Thank you. Scotchorama (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I thank you all for your comments. All articles are being requested to be speedy deleted. Scotchorama (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valentin Clastrier, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michel Godard was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

On Reversion of all recent edits on Nando, Nigeria

Hi, I got your message on the suspected posting of AI generated content. Please I'd like to know which parts of the work (or of the recent edits) were flagged. I can assure you that I really did put in the work in researching, citing/referencing, and linking the necessary parts of that document. I may only be a research enthusiast at present but I find it a bit demoralising that my month long work was all but trashed and termed AI generated content. I don't doubt that there's a standard process by which these reviews are done but I feel the resolution was a bit extreme considering the effort put into the work. As I stated in my reply to your message, AI was mostly used in paraphrasing and editing, and was never the core of the research. All links and citations used are valid (I presumed they were at least checked) and no controversial statement was stated as fact (as far as I could tell). I would like to request a detailed review of the reverted updates and what parts were flagged as AI-generated. Dr Streps (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Using AI for "paraphrasing" is not allowed on Wikipedia. Your personal feelings do not exempt you from Wikipedia's guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Corrected flagged issues

Thank you for your contribution.

On the maintenance tag: I’ve worked through the specific issues in the tag rationale. The infobox image placeholder is removed.

Evaluative statements that were in the article’s voice are now attributed to the cited authors eg the “pioneer of the movement of police reforms” characterisation to Fasihuddin, and the “only officer” distinction to the obituary.

Duplicate citations were consolidated and a malformed journal citation corrected. Promotional and redundant phrasing has been trimmed.

I’ve left the tag in place for your review rather than removing it myself. Happy to make further changes. Thanks Truealpha (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff ok to remove? Truealpha (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Message on my page regarding AI

Hello Gnomingstuff. I'e already spoken to you a bit elsewhere on here, but I would regardless like to enquire about the AI accusation you put on my page. I would like to know which article(s) that I wrote or edited made you think I used AI or LLMs in the writing process. I have not used any AI for anything I have done in wikepedia. Thanks Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

In this case it was genuinely just a question -- one of your articles came up in one of the search backlogs I have, and I wasn't sure on it. (If I was then I would have flagged it.) Thanks for the clarification. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reminder about an article

Hello, sorry to bother again. Please read the message I left here on June 11th, where I explained that I didn't use AI for writing this article. Gabriel1055 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Alternatives assessment

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

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • Business-NGO Working Group for Safer Chemicals and Sustainable Materials (BizNGO) (2011-11-30), BizNGO chemical alternatives assessment protocol {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (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) 20:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think it would be a good idea to add {{ppor|no}} (which shows as (please do not ping on reply)) or something similar to your signature so that people know not to ping you on reply. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I appreciate all the work you've done in the AI-editing space. Without your efforts we'd be in an objectively worse space with regard to trust in our content, and our ability to maintain it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre

Hello,

I have written myself, alone, using documentation, articles books, mainly in Romanian French and English. Absolutely no AI has been used for this article which, by the way, is the translation of the French version. I wrote The French, Romanian and English version. I have also use a source (in RO) that has not even been even published on internet. I can send it to you should you wish. It is an anniversary book, a paper version of the theater published in 2010.

I am used to write long and detailed articles in three languages, which is perhaps why you had the perception that an AI wrote it?... However, you cannot conclude that an AI is behind the scene, just because an article is rich and detailed. This is not enough to flag this article on which I spent weeks of hard work. See for instance the Socolescu's architects pages or the French and Romanian page about the Anti-communist resistance. I specialized on Romanian related subjects. See my user page. Have a look for instance to :

Toma T._Socolescu

Toma N._Socolescu

fr:Résistance anticommuniste roumaine

I find extraordinary that now we now have to justify that we are not an AI... It seems that when you are able to write a comprehensible and very detailed article, you are now suspected to have used an AI !!! I am 57 years old and I belong the a generation that is proud to be able to write long and rich articles. I am sorry to be curious, a great reader, and educated.

The only tools I used for to help me for a good translation is ChatGpt, which is very efficient as translator. The original text is the French version fr:Théâtre national d'opérette et de comédie musicale Ion Dacian. I supposed it is not forbidden to use an AI for translation. It is much better that Deepl or Google translate, or any other one.

Regards Albacore60 (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi @Albacore60, it is okay to use AI for translations, but you must follow WP:LLMTRANSLATE and make sure the content is supported by the sources, because even when LLMs are only told to translate something they will often hallucinate and make something up. There are also other concerns like WP:TONE. Best, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no "hallucination" in this text. I have translated piece by piece slowly and when AI did the job I doubled checked the quality of the translation after each piece of translation.

I was not aware of this other new rule (there are so many on Wikipedia that its has become nearly impossible to respect all of them). I believe that if Wikipedia wants to control and review all AI translated pages, this will soon be out of reach...

I have read carefully the WP:LLMTRANSLATE and I have respected all points. I do consider myself good enough in English to be able to verify all the translation.

The style reflects the style in French version.

I changed the flag in order to reflect the reality and added: Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation.

However, the translation is in deed very good. No extra or invented information has been added during each translation actions. This text was translated in short passages and the result double checked by myself. Regarding the tone, I let other participants to modify when it might be needed. I am not a fan of flat and unremarkable articles :)

People who read this encyclopedia should have a minimum of pleasure doing so, bland articles do not help.

Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Ploiesti

Hello. I’ve read your message and took note of your edit on the Ploiesti page. As I mentioned in the rollback, the content of the page was there before I used the LLM for rephrasing, spelling, and punctuation. I have verified what AI has generated before adding it to the page and it took me more than an hour. Hence, I do not agree that my edits should be removed.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I have verified what AI has generated

Not allowed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Query

Apologies for bothering you with this, since it's not AI-cleanup related so much as "trying to find a source for an article" related but I just wanted to double check: this article (especially the "Description of the study area") is making my AI-spidey senses go on alert. Do I need to recalibrate or does it feel LLM-like? (And, hey, the good news is, if you answer "yes", there's no arguing or tagging required?) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

No need to apologize! Definitely looks like it, dates check out (manuscript received 2024, the 2024 AI stuff shows up). Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

(Now, please excuse my gentle sobbing as I go and find other sources about this hospital lol) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Query-reverted article

Hello Gnomingstuff, Thank you for your message but I would disagree with you that article was AI generated as it was reviewed by professors and only was used in Grammarly as a grammar checking tool which probably is the reason that is flagged as LLM because it uses AI filters. secondly, the information in the updated version of the article was reviewed well with the sources too and any potential mistake was unintentional. Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Grammarly is an AI tool, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you recommend what is the best way to solve that then? as I did use grammarly as I wasn't happy with own framing and grammar check? but aside from that all the strucutre and main sources are mine. Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The best way to solve that is to not use Grammarly, or any other AI-based tools. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I support that and won't be using it, currently what is the right call for that article? Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

To rewrite it without AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay I will rewrite it without grammarly, Thank you. Hossam A. Ismail (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Chamundi Hills

Hi Gnomingstuff, thanks for the review. It took me really long to cite and read everything (over a week). Hence, I am reaching out to you. I did use to refine few sentences using LLMs as I was not happy with my own framing and for formatting citation templates. The following were my main sources which I went through manually to look articles published in the past 20 years.

• Local bird viewing community which publishes the numbers and sightings periodically https://www.mysorenature.org/inside-mysore/chamundi
• Local news paper which publishes the events happening around the area https://starofmysore.com/birds-butterflies-of-chamundi-hill/
• Numbers are quoted directly from Research https://indianbirds.in/pdfs/IB3.3_MisraETAL_ChamundiHills.pdf I had to cross check the % from other publications (like x% of bird species of India) which are also cited.
• National level news paper https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Chamundi%20Hills&gsc.sort= (And few from news minute)
• Cite internal wiki pages with the species pages with respect to the species called in local english (mentioned in the news papers)

I believe you are not against using LLMs for finding potential sources, as long as I have actually read the sources and make sure they actually verify whatever text I am using them for. Please do consider reading few sentences from the article and look at cited articles (You reverted 30 cited articles links too). All of them are inline, sometimes even next to the word like the google groups link where they found a chameleon on the street.

My end goal is to put this content to the https://w.wiki/S7mW It would be nice to have the facts both in English and Kannada which are stubs as of today. Gshguru (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I did use to refine few sentences using LLMs

Which is not allowed. Please do consider "reading few sentences" of Wikipedia's guidelines if you want to contribute to Wikipedia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Which clearly states:

1. Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what is asked of them and can change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited. Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.

Gshguru (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If I or anyone else can tell that you used AI for your edits, it isn't "basic copyediting." Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all your work tagging problematic LLM content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey

If you feel like talking or ranting or anything else, feel free to message me on Discord. You can delete this post once you've read it & don't need to reply, I just wanted to check you're doing ok. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have time...

Hi, can you take a look at this article Pornography in India if you have time? I think it has some instances of superficial analysis, two instances of WP:AILIST, and undue emphasis on significance. But I'm not sure if I should put an AI tag there, so I thought I'd just leave this for you to decide since you seem to be better at this. Thanks. AdaCiccone (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Checkered Past (album), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phil Lewis was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Flag on Tisarana Buddhist Monastery

Hi, saw you flagged Tisarana Buddhist Monastery as potentially AI-generated. The content itself was not AI-generated, it was AI-reviewed and the correctness of the information was verified before publishing. However, I took the opportunity to rewrite most of the text, improving the flow and making the tone of the page more neutral. Can you have a look and remove the tag? Thanks Flavio Costa (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to rewrite most of the text, improving the flow and making the tone of the page more neutral.

Not allowed. If you don't like the tag then don't use AI. Actually, don't use AI anyway, as it is not allowed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

WHat do you mean? I just rewrote most of the text, improving the flow and making the tone of the page more neutral. Using my own words, no AI input at all, as a correction to the issue you flagged. Flavio Costa (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If I can tell that it's AI writing just based on reading, then your "own words" are not sufficient rewriting. Write it yourself, with no AI involvement whatsoever. Our guidelines are not optional. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Challenge accepted, challenge completed - check again the text: same ideas, but fully rewritten from scratch, absolutely zero LLM, no spelling checks or any form of machine intervention in the content, 100% human. Flavio Costa (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Reta Keiha bio Wiki.

Kia Ora Gnomingstuff. I just wanted to clarify that the edit in question wasn’t AI-generated article content.

Ai for instance cannot generate the maps presented in the 1886 Kaiti Native lance court case.

I used AI to help reconstruct and revisd the wikitext as a coding/editing aid rather than to generate encyclopaedic prose or sources. Because I am not that great at that aspect of it.

The underlying content was based on the existing article and reliable sources, not purely AI-generated text.

I am a professional researcher and a member of the indigenous community to whom Reta Keiha belongs

Considering that I spent several hours ensuring that the page was accurate, and aligning it. I’m reversing your reversal accordingly because the content is supported by reliable cited source.

If you have concerns about the accuracy of any particular statement, I’d encourage you to check the sources cited in the article. If you identify a specific issue with the sourcing or wording, I’m happy to discuss it and make any necessary improvements.

Pai Mārire - Tanith Tanith.wirihana (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not an allowed use of AI, please review our guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

My use of AI was limited to assisting with the drafting and organisation of material that I had already researched from reliable sources. The factual content, citations and source selection were my own. I reviewed the output against the underlying sources and revised it before publishing.

Your changes will again be reversed. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Policy - Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what is asked of them and can change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited. Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.

Editors are permitted to use LLMs to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia, but must follow the guidance laid out at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

"Assisting with the drafting" is not basic copyediting. Basic copyediting means things like spelling and capitalization. If I can tell upon reading your edit that it is AI, then it does not follow the guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

limited to assisting with the drafting

This is not allowed. I don't know what to tell you here. You are not an exception to the rules; either you follow the guidelines voluntarily, or you follow them involuntarily. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your efforts against AI-assisted writing (´▽`ʃ♡ƪ) — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 21:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Flagged Post for Artificial Intelligence

I do not make many edits, but the ones that I make do not use artificial intelligence. It seems others have had similar issues with you on this matter. What article are you referring to and by what metric are you measuring such claims?

I would recommend, in future, that you site which article it is that you believe uses artificial intelligence in the comments you leave on users pages. That would make these issues a lot less drawn out.

Thanks,

GG Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, comments on your edits are not comments on your character, and part of being an adult is learning not to take things like that personally. If I wanted to comment on your character, I would do that directly.

Second of all, the reason others have had similar issues with you on this matter is that, in most cases, they were using AI and don't like that I noticed that, so I'm not sure why you're waving that around as some kind of gotcha.

Anyway: Are you using tools such as Grammarly, DeepL, Quillbot, Microsoft's rewriting functionality, etc. to edit, proofread, rewrite, format, etc. content or to find sources? Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In long: I view AI as an insult to my character because I view it as an abhorrence upon humanity, and furthermore as a pale imitation of the peaks and troughs of human experience. To say that I use artificial intelligence is to question my very faith in humanity, and to question my ability to cogitate, cerebrate, and envisage. Your insistence upon “becoming an adult” is an insult itself, and adulthood is not a prerequisite to becoming a Wikipedia editor. However, I myself am an adult. I am not trying to catch you in a “gotcha,” I simply stated a fact. Others have had this issue. Does that frustrate you in and of itself? I made no comment on it. I made a recommendation and an observation, all for you to actually insult my character by implying I am less adult than you. Which, as an aside, I would never assume that you are or are not adult, nor would I imply a sense of moral superiority from such an assumption. I will not touch on that further, even though it is clearly in violation of the personal attacks section. For reference to the rules, see: No personal attacks -> What is considered to be a personal attack.

In short: No, I did not and do not use AI. Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You do not need me to lecture me about policy. You're free to view AI however you want, but your edits are not your personality. If you didn't use AI then there is no need to do anything except move on. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Please proceed to delete your comment off of my page, or make an edit stating that you were misinformed as to my usage of artificial intelligence.

Thanks,

GG Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It's your talk page, not mine. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yet you commented on it originally.

I would view it as a sign of good faith and a way to progress forward as neutral parties. Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A better way to progress forward is to stop spamming my talk page every 4 minutes and go about your own business. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted. I will place either screenshots or hyperlinks of this conversation under your original post. Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but -- for the second time -- stop spamming my talk page. I am trying to do work and I cannot do that when you leave pointless comments incessantly. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

AI Revert

Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted all of my edits to the LG Electronics page because you suspected they were AI-generated. I would like to clarify that I researched the content myself and wrote the additions in my own words.

Could you please identify the specific edits or passages that raised concerns? I am happy to review them, provide the supporting sources, and revise any wording that does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. Dimphillip (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Do it yourself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite and resolve this constructively. You are the one who reverted my edits because you suspected they werer AI-genreated, and I explained that i researched and wrote the material myself.

Since you made that judgment and reverted the edits on that basis, I think it is reasonable to ask what specifically led you to that conclusion. Tellimg me to "do it yourself" does not explain why you believed the edits were AI-genereated or identify what, if anything, was wrong with the content. Dimphillip (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Do it yourself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Helpful example

I was just looking for AI pages (my search term was "serves as a testament") when I found the page Blue Skied An' Clear. I think this might be a useful example for your AI-detection pages, because of this sentence:

In addition to serving as a showcase of the Morr Music roster, this release serves as a testament to the resurgence or revival of the shoegazing sound in this particular realm of electronica or IDM.

This feels stereotypically AI-generated on the surface, but it was added in 2021. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 21:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I keep a running list of "false positives" (the most recent one being FGF-2 internal ribosome entry site (IRES)) but I can add it to that, although pretty much everything on the false positives list has anti-tells (for instance with that one, syntactically though it's a little sprawling for AI-generated text, AI strongly tends to use "showcase" as a verb rather than a noun, none of the ubiquitous common tics of AI-generated album articles show up, etc.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

if you mean the quiz here, the examples there are chosen because they contain both search results that are unambiguously AI (ChatGPT params, etc) and search results that are common false positives (the Markdown example especially) so I'd have to see if anything there qualifies for that Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | August 2026 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with AUG26, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nabakrushna Choudhuri, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puri was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Lisa Emelia Svensson

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

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • socvet.se https://web.archive.org/web/20250114115930/https://socvet.se/article/download/5135/4326/21057. Archived from the original on 2025-01-14. Retrieved 2025-04-15. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (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) 20:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Wrong diff?

Hi Gnomingstuff, just checking if the link is correct here. Best, CMD (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed thanks Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Royal Society of Canada

Hi Gnomingstuff. Thank you so mcuh for your feedback! I replied on my own talk page on 15 July, but just realized it that doesn't notify you, so I'm trying again here. The edits I made to the RSC entry was reversed due to a possible AI use. I did use an AI tool to initially gather some sources before I wrote, so I can see why it got flagged, and I've now disclosed on the article talk page that I'm a member of the Society. If you have a minute, it would be really useful for me to know which parts appeared machine-written. I honestly can't tell, and I'd like to be able to to update; the motivation was to ensure transparency and accuracy about the Society, which was severely missing from the prior version. If there were other problems too, sourcing or tone or material that just doesn't belong, I'd rather hear it now than find out one revert at a time. Sorry for the fumbling. I don't edit here much. Igrossm (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated tag

Hi @Gnomingstuff, I saw the tag you added on the Double Infinity page about potential AI-generated text. I revised the section to make the wording more closely follow the cited sources and removed some interpretive phrasing. I also double-checked the supporting sources. When I first wrote the section, I used AI to help with formatting the citations, as I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's citation system. The article content itself was written by me based on the cited interviews and articles. I can provide exact quotes or source details if helpful. Please let me know if there are any remaining concerns. Modestblouse (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Your behavior

I found your edits going through an unrelated medical article, and I just want to say that some of your behavior is straight up WP:BITEy, if not otherwise extremely rude and disrespectful. This is the kind of behavior I'd take to WP:ANI and would rather not see from someone who wants to constructively improve WP. It gives me a bad taste in my mouth and makes me think that the entire WP:AICLEANUP team should not be hounding users and instead offer them opportunities to improve.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• The discouragement at the top of your talk page for others to discuss your editing behavior, and simply dismissing such criticism as "complaints."
• Your most recent behavior on Talk:Borderline personality disorder, in which you state that people who disagree with your views are "uninformed" and ad hominem attacking someone else's criticism of your behavior tagging pages by criticizing their grammar.
• Your outright refusal to help new users who wanted to know where exactly they had placed alleged AI-generated text, as seen multiple times on this very talk page (at "Specific feedback only, please" and "Cathy Caruth"). Directing them to shouty links with no explanation whatsoever is just plain rude, if not outright an assumption of bad faith.

wizzito | say hello! 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you want to take something to ANI, then do it. Don't use it as a vague threat.

As for the rest:

• It is not rude to call someone's complaints complaints, it is factually accurate. The rude behavior is the complaining.
• Similarly, it is not rude to call someone's uninformed views uninformed. It is factually accurate.
• People know whether they did or did not place AI-generated text. They do not need to be told what their own actions were. There is an essay going into this, because it turns out this is an extremely common deflection across the board and not some personal failing of mine.
• As for the last one, I was not criticizing grammar, I was criticizing the dehumanizing term "it," i.e., referring to me as a thing and not a person. I don't care whether people make grammatical mistakes, but I would like to be referred to with human pronouns.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who's being rude by treating any criticism of your actions as blanket "complaining." Just because you want to correct someone does not mean you need to be rude about it. And yes, people do (politely) need to be told what their own actions are, lest we suddenly hit them with WP:BRICKS. And the misuse of pronouns is indeed a grammatical error. wizzito | say hello! 21:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If someone sincerely needs to be told whether they, themselves, used AI in their own writing process then that is a WP:CIR issue, as people should not be contributing writing to Wikipedia if they do not know how it came into the world and/or do not have recall of their own actions.

The only time it is appropriate to call a person "it" is if they have directly said that "it" is their preferred pronoun. Otherwise, it is dehumanizing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kashinagara, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puri was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Canadian Jesuit parish articles

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Gnomingstuff, Thank you for reviewing the recent edits to the Canadian Jesuit parish articles. I am a Jesuit of Canada, so I recognize that I have a conflict of interest concerning these pages. The purpose of the edits was to correct current institutional relationships and clergy assignments and to explain, without overstating it, what the parishes’ Jesuit identity means. I understand your concerns about promotional or AI-generated language. Could you advise which factual changes might be appropriate if presented more concisely, supported by independent sources, and proposed through the articles’ talk pages? I would particularly like to ensure that the current Jesuit responsibility for these parishes and the names of their pastors are accurately recorded. Thank you for your guidance. ~2026-42308-86 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't use AI to post comments either, or else they will not get answered. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello and thanks for your many contributions to the project. In the future, I recommend discussing editor conduct on their user talk page rather than the pump. Czarking0 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I recommend not posting passive-aggressive messages on my talk page. As it turns out, I respect people's time and am not going to thrust useless pings upon them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Answers

About this question: Probably because it's easier to understand at a glance than the problems you name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Question about page restoration

Hi, which part of Michael Lawrie was LLM generated? I'm not that good at spotting this stuff. InfernoHues (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Have a look

Hi, could you take a look at this? Seems LLM-generated. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, apologies, a bit backlogged at the moment so not sure I can get to this in time Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand, Gurkubondinn took care of it though. I may contact you if the problem persists. Thanks for your attention. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Also filed it at AIN, so it should get dealt with sooner or later. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

False positive AI tag on Thermogenin edit Regarding HEAT Cycle

Hello Gnomingstuff,

Hope you are good I your health upon receiving this conversation.

I want to discuss or in fact reverse an edit you madein the page "Thermogenine" regarding HEAT Cycle. It seems it has been marked as AI edited, which it isn't. It was completely written by me. The work is part of my PhD Dissertation and also published in high ranked journals (Citations are included in the text). The publications are also cited by secondary research groups.

Further, initially it was considered as a separate topic, but wikipedia administrators asked me to integrate it into Thermogenine page, that I did later.

It is requested therefore to please reverse the flag of AI generated text and restore the edit regarding HEAT Cycle completely.

Thanks for your understanding. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Fascinating how this writing style is different from the excerpt in the article. Almost as if the article text was written by or with something else. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what does this means. My only concern is that as I have edited it and it's based on purely my work, I wrote it myself. I followed all the rules for citations, as there were few citation errors in start. Please un-flag the AI mark and make the HEAT Cycle work readable. Thanks. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I have edited it and it's based on purely my work

What do you mean "based on"? Is it or is it not your work? Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean that it is my original writing. It is based on the work presented in a peer reviewed research paper. I was first author of paper with many other authors. There are more than one papers published to support the work. Further, it is not copy-pasted. If you think some part does not sound good or against Wikipedia rules please let me know. I'd be happy to make changes. Thank you for your assistance. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Gnomingstuff, have you please got time to remove the AI tag and made the editions regarding HEAT Cycle in Thermogenic page public? Further, also please guide me if at this point this term should have its own page?

Thanks for your attention.

Regards

Dr. Hammad Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Organized Labour September Editing Event

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

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

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

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

An award for you!

		The Wikignome Award
		For your help with cleanup of archived discussions

In solidarity, Dafootballguy  (Want to talk?) 23:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi - I appreciate this but just a quick clarification, I'm not doing cleanup of archived discussions anymore because people told me to stop. I am keeping track of cleanup that should be done but that I am not allowed to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff I have been some cleanup. Is this a problem? In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 00:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the RfC. The outcome is ridiculous and there is vandalism in archives up to and including the literal N-word as a result. I tried. If only I had just been faster at the time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

(Saw your comment at VPR.) I think that's a crazy RfC too, but don't you think consensus that talk page archives can be edited to remove material that breaches policy at least gives you some breathing room to clean up blatant vandalism and the like? Evidently the community was divided about test edits and nonsense and so forth, but if you remove racial slurs and someone decides to revert you, I would...certainly be interested to hear their explanation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't really feel like relitigating this on my talk page, apologies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, I've at least removed everything in the first two categories on your list, so if people don't like that they can litigate it with me instead. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

sreved

what is "sreved"? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Bored kittycat (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not template me. Template the person who accused people who have well-founded opinions about AI of acting out of "broad prejudice."

But of course you're not going to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, please leave your condescending exclamation points out of this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia." As if I haven't been here for years. "Here is Wikipedia's welcome page." Holy crap! There's a welcome page? Are you going to tell me how to make my first edit next? Unbelievable. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Please calm down. I did not write the UW template. Bored kittycat (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Then don't use it if you don't want to say the words in it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bored kittycat Please do not police talkpage discussions with twinkle in this manner. It leads to these WP:DNTTR issues. It is unclear from the page history why you reverted Gnomingstuff. I would very highly encourage leaving an edit summary in all cases of removing talkpage comments, from regular users or otherwise. CMD (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

List of Hilary duff songs page

hello,

I saw that you marked the "List of Songs Recorded by Hilary Duff" page as AI, and I'm trying to understand what about this page is cause for concern. I've been a huge fan of hers for 22 years and am very familiar with her entire library of music. With that said, Im very confused as to what portion of this page you believe is AI. There might be some weak references and I'm happy to fix that, but as far as AI goes, this is innaccurate. I'm a bit if a perfectionist and have worded sections and footnotes to make the sections and information as clear as possible as she has music not just from albums and singles but also music that originates elsewhere as well. Can you please help me understand what portions of this page you believe are AI so I can tackle and reword as necessary? Thanks! PokeDuff87 (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Why are you asking me whether you used AI? You don't need someone else to tell you, unless you literally have no recollection of your own actions. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I know I didn't use AI to write this article. I wrote every part of this article on my own, or rewrote/added to existing parts of this article that has existed since 2014. However, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. I'm happy to rewrite the non-list sections of the article.

I also didn't ask you IF I used AI, I asked you what portions of the article you deem to be AI generated. I've been heavily editing this article since before Hilary's most recent album came out in February, as this has been a passion project of mine. I don't appreciate being falsely accused of using AI when I detest it myself. PokeDuff87 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I've put in for a Third Opinion request regarding this AI maintenance tag on the List of Songs Recorded by Hilary Duff" Article. Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements PokeDuff87 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Good. Now please stop spamming my talk page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2026 (UTC)