User talk:Klbrain

Hi,

I have reverted couple of your bold redirects because I do find them objectionable. I will suggest you to slow down as your bold redirects are getting challenged by others. You should not be doing this repeatedly. Sumiono (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Also I will suggest you to revisit WP:Merge as it seems there are certain criterias mentioned there which are necessary to be fulfilled for an official merge. Sumiono (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

They are sometimes reversed, and I have no problem with that. Please see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Merging for the protocol under which I'm operating. I'm also surprised that a newlt created account demonstrates such elegant use of protocol. Could you let me know what other accounts you have or have operataed under? Klbrain (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Klbrain Actually I am not obliged to disclose my alternate account to you or anyone unless I am running for adminship. Sometimes becoming too bold looks disruptive to your fellow new page patrollers, I see you got NPR in 2024. And FYI, I am a new page patroller much more before than 2024 to my alt, and also been a mentor to newbie NPPers, so pretty much familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia. If you still have concerns see legitimate use of alternate accounts. Sumiono (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Nice to know; I sent you a welcome message (before I read your reply here); happy editing. Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Klbrain Do you really think that Hume Society lacks notability? Weird enough? The article didn't cited secondary sources it does not mean that it fails notability. I will suggest you to atleast try to find better sources from Google scholars, Google books, etc, I am very worried about your behaviour, you are recklessly redirecting articles which were even there in the main space since 90 days. Have you ever consider joining NPP SCHOOL ? Sumiono (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! You are receiving this message because you are a top contributor on the WikiLoop DoubleCheck leaderboard. Thank you for your reviews!

We are excited to announce WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 — a complete ground-up rewrite with direct revert, Twinkle-style patrol features, real-time ML scoring, and three ways to review (web app, userscript, Chrome extension).

Read the full announcement: WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 newsletter

Thank you for supporting the project! — xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Klbrain, I saw the merge of the article "AI veganism" into Ethics of uncertain sentience, and actually, I don't think it fits well there. "Ethics of uncertain sentience" is roughly about how to treat beings for which you're not sure if they can feel anything; so environmental impact and negative effects for AI consumers are off-topic there. Alenoach (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that you're right; what about Artificial intelligence#AI welfare and rights? The concern is that the the rather weak content on AI veganism will be bounced from there too, unless discussed only very briefly, but regardless, perhaps that's the right move. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer Ethics of uncertain sentience over Artificial intelligence#AI welfare and rights: the second option has a similar issue and the concept of AI veganism is also too niche for the general article on AI.

Not ideal as well, but perhaps Ethics of artificial intelligence#Solutions and approaches (or somewhere in Environmental_impact_of_artificial_intelligence). Otherwise, if there no good option, we can keep it in Ethics of uncertain sentience. Alenoach (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Of those others, Ethics of artificial intelligence#Solutions and approaches might be best, and better than its current location; shall me move it boldly, or do you think that it warrants a formal proposal? Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I created a comment pinging merge discussion participants: Talk:Ethics_of_artificial_intelligence#Merge_destination. Alenoach (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you recently added a lot of unsourced material from Davuilevu which itself is just a redirect to he school. There's already a tag on the school page that it suffers from a lack of sourcing (lots of name-dropping of notable people who are claimed to have attended, but there's no sourcing for it -- I'm removed a lot of it), apparently for promotional purposes. Are there sources for your newly-added content? I didn't want to just delete all the new material in case there were. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I prefer to do merges as a 'full content', and then edit from there, as the authorship is then clearer; I have no concerns at all with deleting unsourced material. The Davuilevu page lacked in-line sources, but had a bibliography, including:

• Thornley, Andrew; Exodus of the i Taukei, The Wesleyan Church in Fiji 1848-74; Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific; 2002
• Tippett, A.R., 1954, The Christian (Fiji 1835–1867), Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland

The Thornley reference is from: Journal of Pacific Studies, Volume 20, 1996, 175–187. So, that might be considered reliable. The Tippett reference is hard to trace, but he was an academic working the field, and there's a good chance that this is referring to a reliable source. Having said that, 1954 would have to be his 'early work', as the sources I've been able to find published by him are mostly from the 1970s. Given the nature of the source (used also on Alan Tippett), it might well be an unpublished work, but his later published work might be better (much of it onc Methodism in Fiji). Klbrain (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! Hope you're doing well.

I’m reaching out because I noticed you created the Wikipedia page for Runa HR (Runa (HR software)). I am currently working on an entry for a similar company (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Wiin0/Taller), but I’ve run into some challenges getting it approved and moved to the main space.

If possible, I would love to get your guidance. Could you share any recommendations, best practices, or specific tips to help me get the article ready for publication? I have gathered reliable, verified sources that cover the organization’s history, growth, and impact—do you think that will be enough to meet the notability requirements?

Thank you so much for your time and help. Wishing you a great day!

Best regards, Wiin0 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Not my creating; that was User:Machinegunjimmy; I did, though, review it. I also don't speak Spanish, and don't edit on .es, so am not well-placed to make that judgement! In general, though, here on .en, the AfC process (Wikipedia:Articles for creation) is set up to help with building new articles. Klbrain (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Heya, I noticed your edits in Special:Diff/1348660276/1351403186 were still done manually. It seems you're using a tool or script different from twinkle, so I just wanted to let you know that a few hours ago Twinkle was updated to support nominating articles for merging! When using twinkle, both the source and target pages will be tagged automatically, so you don't need to fix the AfD template manually. See WP:AFD2. And of course thanks for your tireless work in the merge backlog! FaviFake (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the Twinkle change; I'll move to using it. The tool I was using was the 'Curation Toolbar', as part of new page patrol. It's quite a simple interface, and so I might switch to using Twinkle (rather than it) for merges. Klbrain (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Tornado Elliott (Yelp for help!) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

its the juce of life in my opinion. Thanks for noting that my article was notable, I had no clue if she was or not. Tornado Elliott (Yelp for help!) 12:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		RadicalCopyeditor has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you so much for resolving the merge I proposed re: Queer Heterosexuality! You rock! RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As with any other maintenance tag, please assume good faith that the person tagging it might have seen signs that you missed or did verification that you didn't. The best course of action is usually to politely ask the person who added the tag for an explanation or discussion. AI detection remains more of an art than a science at this stage and the wanton removal of maintenance tags prevents appropriate scrutiny of the articles and precludes consensus-building about whether an article is in fact AI-generated. Further, my read of community consensus from recent discussions, including an RfC, is that by removing the tag you acknowledge that you have checked carefully and verified that the article does not violate any core PaG and that any content which is written by an LLM has either been removed or completely rewritten by a human. Mass removal of AI-generated tags without careful review may for this reason be treated the same as the massed restoration/introduction of PaG-violating content, i.e. disruptive. Fermiboson (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I can confirm that I have been checking for AI content in all tagged pages, I've been working through NPP backlog, and come across these not infrequently. I have not been targetting AI tagging, but they are appearing frequetly in the NPP backlog, for understandable reasons. I'm also professionally used to detecting AI use, and have prosecuted many students for inappropriate AI use, so I'm also aware of evidential standards. Assuming good faith is a 2-way street; my feeling is that some editors are inappropriately tagging without assuming good faith of the article creators; it doesn't 'smell right' is a poor argument for claiming AI use. I'm also very happy for tag removal to be reversed if evidence of ongoing AI problems can be verified with evidence. I'll watch the tone of my edit summaries though, as I realise that some of these were a little sharp; my frustration at what appears to be inappropriate drive-by tagging with no justification given may well have shown from time to time! Please do let me know if you have any particular examples that you're concerned about and I'm happy to look again. Klbrain (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your collegial reply. I must also admit that my initial message was made somewhat in frustration. I’m sure you’ll appreciate that the volume of AI-generated material has grown increasingly and unmanageably onwiki and this creates a lot of frustration among the AI cleanup crew. You may also be aware that there was some recent friction between NPP and AI cleanup with regards to the tagging of an article and this has caused much unneeded and unproductive angst on both sides (notwithstanding, of course, that especially between NPP and cleanup crews there really should not be sides). As a former NPP this situation is also personally frustrating to me and I want to find ways to facilitate everyone doing their indispensable and understaffed work without conflict. I’m AFK at the moment and so cannot produce specifics but I hope to provide some when I get back and also hope to work out through conversation things both sides can do or policies/norms we can establish to prevent such friction from occurring. Fermiboson (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

One example I was provided with is your removal of the tag here when the text contained the smoking-gun “merge draft segment from copilot” and there’s no real reason to expect that the AI use by said user has stopped since then. Fermiboson (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had stopped the clearly-acknowledged use of Copilot for drafting, but then also noted that the author revised the content (the human in the loop). So, my feeling was that the matter had been appropriately resolved, hence removal of the tag is and was appropriate. Klbrain (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Klbrain,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

pls I want to know the reason for nominating the above article for deletion. Prempy (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The criteria for academic getting biography pages on Wikipedia is really high; you can see it at WP:NACADEMIC; El Boakye Gyasi simply hasn't progressed far enough in her career (for example, having a named full professorship) or produced enough high-impact research. Her research impact score on Scopus, for example, is 8; an academic with a biography here would typically have an impact more like 20, and many would be well over 50. Klbrain (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you a Ghanaian Prempy (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

No. What's more relevant, though, is what your views are on the proposal; you can make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam El Boakye-Gyasi. By the way, we also seem to have a content fork: Mariam El Boakye-Gyasi and Mariam El-Boakye Gyasi! Klbrain (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)