User talk:Jakecopp

Greetings, do you use AI in the creation/generation of the content you're adding to articles? I ask only because it's unusual for editors to insert flawlessly cited and formatted content in large single edits, without followup edits to fix small issues. Please note: I am not accusing; I'm only inquiring. AI has become a pervasive issue wrt Wikipedia editing, and I - like a great many longtime editors - have become suspicious of editing patterns that are suggestive of AI influence. Thanks. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

> do you use AI in the creation/generation of the content you're adding to articles?

No, I carefully think about what I want to say, and write all content by hand - preferably using Vim on a nice Colemak keyboard.

For finding sources I use traditional search engines, and sometimes search mode in AI models - however I treat these responses as I would treat the list of Google search results (without any guarantee of completeness or correctness, even though it's presented with such confidence) - along with all the usual ways like going to libraries / local archives etc.

I'm very careful to include references for every sentence I write with a fully annotated inline reference, with page numbers for PDFs (using the `#pagenum=X` URL suffix for the PDF page, and `|page=Y` for the number as printed, as they often differ), and adding archive.org links (navigating back in time for dead links to find the last alive version) where I think there's a risk of something going offline etc.

I read (and contribute) to Wikipedia because I know it is a human creation, well referenced, and rigorously reviewed/contested.

> I ask only because it's unusual for editors to insert flawlessly cited and formatted content in large single edits, without followup edits to fix small issues.

Yes, I have made some quite like large edits to Southern Arterial Route, a page I originally created through the AfC process. In those cases I copy the current content and work in Vim as I prefer that for writing. I check for syntax errors in my own self hosted Mediawiki (I wrote some details about that at https://jakecoppinger.com/2025/09/green-lights-more-often-the-secret-2018-study-of-sydneys-traffic-signals/#Drafting_in_Wikitext), and then after checking multiple times I copy the diff into Wikipedia (checking that nobody has changed the page in the meantime).

Where I make smaller edits and don't copy into Vim I certainly make mistakes - I made one such typo yesterday (before your message) in a string of small edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%8Chashi_Junction&diff=prev&oldid=1333251761#:~:text=and%20175%20meters.-,Line%2028,-%3A)

I'm open to working in smaller chunks/diffs - is that preferred/the expectation? I'm relatively new so would appreciate any advice!

Thanks, Jake Jakecopp (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Outstanding reply, thank you very kindly for the details. I appreciate your rigorous methodology. The only criticism I can muster is for your use of Vim, as vi and all of its siblings and descendents are evil spawn of the devil, in the mighty edit war where Emacs reigns supreme. Of course, I say this in jest! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Haha, I appreciate the ongoing rivalry! Thanks. Jakecopp (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for 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) 07:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your interest in editing endometriosis. Unfortunately, I've had to revert your recent changes, as it didn't meet the strict guideline for medical sourcing, which requires the use of recent secondary sources, instead of press releases or primary studies. When you add extraordinary claims (e.g. ucupuncture works well), the quality of sources also needs to be extraordinary. Also keep in mind that you need to use your own words; your recent additions closely paraphrased the sources you cited. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Femke, thanks very much for reviewing my change. I unfortunately wasn't across medical sourcing guidelines - I'll pay close attention to that in future. Thanks. Jakecopp (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)