User talk:HurricaneZeta/Archive 13

Thanks, I learn something new every day. Polygnotus (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta My vote that was marked LLM was done by the the person who initiated the vote. It seems they have a pattern of marking votes as LLM that opposes their view and its gotten to the 4th time they've nominated this article for AfD. Whats the procedure to deal with that?

I do not have a vested in terest in the article. This is just my review based on what I read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manish_Kejriwal_(4th_nomination)

Sincerely, JournalJane (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@JournalJane i don't know if @Kelob2678 has done what you're saying before, but in this case I think it is justified. I know detectors are unreliable, but it gives me a 96% on GPTZero, and you made all the votes with only a few minutes in between. I saw you were advised to get experience at AfD, but all of those votes have the same structure and don't exactly show your understanding of notability.

How you wrote here is entirely fine and no one is going to fault you for minor grammatical errors outside of article content. You should review the article yourself and reach your own conclusion and write it in an original way - that's what shows an understanding of notability, and we want a human to review drafts and new pages. HurricaneZeta^C 02:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s really just a template I’ve been using to keep my reviews consistent. I’ve spent some time working on it so that my !votes clearly state my position, reasoning, and any suggestions without getting into emotional or confusing wording. That’s probably why they come across as similar.

I’ve also been picking AfDs that seem more straightforward while I’m still learning, so I can focus on understanding the process before jumping into more complex cases.

I do review each article myself. I go through the article, check the references, and do a quick search to see if there’s meaningful independent coverage. Based on that, I make my own call. None of my comments are generated content, they reflect what I’ve actually found.

If there are concerns about how I’m approaching this, I’m completely open to feedback and improving. That’s part of why I’m here. But being marked as LLM-generated without being notified or asked first didn’t feel right, especially when I would have been happy to explain. JournalJane (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for bringing this to you and being defensive. I wanted to get another perspective in case I’m missing something.

I’ll assume good faith in Kelob2678’s actions, but I do want to clarify that my comments are not AI generated. At most, they may be lightly polished for clarity using basic tools, but the work and reasoning are my own.

In terms of timing, I focused on more straightforward AfDs as part of learning the process and refining my review format. Those tend to take only a few minutes, while a smaller number of cases required more time and judgment. That was intentional so I could build familiarity before moving into more complex topics.

Putting my ego aside, If you feel I’ve misunderstood notability in any of the cases, I would really appreciate you pointing those out so I can correct myself. Please help me understand where I went wrong.JournalJane (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Makeship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makeship (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sohom (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

wow, such a nice user page - congrats+! 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! HurricaneZeta^C 20:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you are a reviewer in AFC,is there any change you view the draft Draft:Cyclone Narelle (2026), it a current cyclone and the Draft need for approval or decline to be an article. NoobsTer (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NoobbTr, I think the draft still needs work. Try to expand the impacts and aftermath section. It might be better to wait for more information on the impacts, as there is no rush to publish it. HurricaneZeta^C 04:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Burmese hare on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Middle ear myoclonus on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 04:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

	Greetings, HurricaneZeta. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: MCE89
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)