User talk:Iwojtowicz

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nation1, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Nation1. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated 2B1 conference, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2B1 conference. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Income taxes in Canada with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Hazard-SJ  ±  02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Spreadsheet formulas" are deprecated (except in articles about spreadsheet programs), per various WP:MOS pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no such provision in WP:MOS. --Iwoj (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Income taxes in Canada with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Hazard-SJ  ±  02:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Income taxes in Canada. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You have not yet supplied a valid argument for why my additions are "unconstructive edits" or why it should constitute "vandalism." Can you provide a legitimate case for these claims? --Iwoj (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Income taxes in Canada and have a read of WP:NOTHOWTO and you will see that WP is NOT an instruction manual on how to do things. Mtking ^(edits) 02:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Iwojtowicz. You have new messages at Talk:Income taxes in Canada.
Message added 02:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Hazard-SJ  ±  02:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Iwojtowicz. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
Message added 03:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Hazard-SJ  ±  03:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Iwojtowicz. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
Message added 04:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Hazard-SJ  ±  04:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2B1 conference 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/2B1 conference (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Pburka (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

00:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

14:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2B1 conference 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/2B1 conference (3rd 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Iwoj, did you use an LLM (for example an "AI chatbot" like ChatGPT, or a tool like Grammarly) to generate the International Teletimes article? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Why? Iwoj~enwiki (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not recommend being evasive (or dishonest). Did you you an LLM, yes or no? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Everyone uses LLM's. They are almost as common as word processors now. I explained my methods on the article's talk page. There are no hallucinations and I vetted all the content. Iwojtowicz (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't care what "everyone" does. It is not allowed on enwiki (and the blocking policy has just been amended to explicitly mention disruptively using AI as a reason for being blocked). Everyone that uses AI on Wikipedia (which is not "everyone") always claims that they "verify everything", which almost always turns out to be a demonstrable lie. If you use AI for editing Wikipedia, you will force a much higher level or scrutiny, as that requires other volunteer editors to waste time on reading through your edits and verify everything (this is the disruptive part). That is without even considering the bad level of writing that these algorithms produce, which is not up to standards for Wikipedia (you may want to ask yourself how I knew you used AI).

Just to note it: I am taking this reply as an admission of AI use. But you should WP:LLMDISCLOSE, doing it sooner rather than later will work in your favour. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Gurkubondinn. I used to use LLMs to edit Wikipedia, which is strongly discouraged and caused some of my edits to be reverted. Wikipedia is not an AI encyclopedia; it should be fully human written. I highly suggest that you not use LLMs to edit. The Conservative Journalist 22:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

As of last week, LLMs to generate or rewrite articles on Wikipedia is prohibited. See this. The Conservative Journalist 23:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that I had already made them aware of NEWLLM. I guess that I can only say the same thing so many times per day before I start getting my wires crossed. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I used the LLM to comment on my own work and incorporated some of its suggestions, which I believe falls under the acceptable use. The details of the article and the supporting references are accurate and true. Iwojtowicz (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Our question is, did you use any AI chatbot or generator to write any parts of the article? That is prohibited on Wikipedia. The Conservative Journalist 23:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Notoriously AI-styled sentences like Its inclusion in a 1995 Discovery Channel and PBS documentary alongside the inventors of the internet reflects the degree to which it was regarded as a representative example of the new medium at the moment of its emergence making its way into articles is a lot more than just asking an LLM for comments on your work.

The community has evolved in the last year to lose any patience it had with LLM editing, to the degree that a significant minority in an WP:RFC on the policy issue were arguing that the LLM users should be blocked without any warning, instead of a single warning. It's much better to resolve this issue quietly here than possibly noisily elsewhere, so I'd urge you to not use LLMs for any Wikipedia purpose. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Teletimes was in a documentary that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel and on PBS. It's not a hallucination. Iwojtowicz (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It might not be a hallucination, but it is bad writing. This is an encyclopedia after all. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

You are right. I edited it down to "Its inclusion in a well-circulated documentary alongside the inventors of the internet reflects the degree to which it was regarded as a representative example of the new medium." Iwojtowicz (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see much progression in the LLM and deletion arguments and would like to suggest that the notices be removed. Iwojtowicz (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DOCMaker 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/DOCMaker 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.

msk 02:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Teletimes 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/International Teletimes 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.

JMWt (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)