User talk:LWG

per your edit of the neutrality note on 'controversy over cantors theory', I'm one of the editors trying to put antiset-theory-infinity content into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a problem, the editors interpret the 'all points of view' rule without changing it, that the editors of Wikipedia corporate point of view is allowed but not contrary, so an article with contrary content is accused of not being balanced but NOT articles with only one point of view. For example set theory and creation vs evolution. On the talk pages they obviously interpret all points of view as anything OPPOSING their points of view must be opposed, and in the same article, but entire articles supporting their view are ok. The rule is also miswritten assuming any topic such as creation evolution or set theory is in only one article. The article in question thus should have all the antiset-theory-infinity content in it and none elsewhere and no other content in it. But they take advantage of the way the rule is written to claim that particular article on set theory only should be 'balnced' meaning invalidate all of its antiset-theory content. That's how they did the creation evolution articles, avoiding much popular creationist and intelligent design material since they don't know how to include opposing material, and edit locking the pages and their talk pages to silence the creationists. Per my edits on set theory they use any rule as absolute and misinterpret them to delete my material, despite the 'ignore all rules' rule, and sometimes just delete or whatever without reason. Once I put my email in a fellow antiset-theorist's personal talk pages and it was deleted and he was permanently banned as an editor, for merely being an antiset-theorest. And the second talk page for controversy over cantor's theory is problematic since Wikipedia software is not set up for one article having two talk pages. So me and two other editors fixed that. The pro set theory editors undid the fix and edit blocked the page. And the page is almost impossible for those who should be involved in it to find or know about. The purpose of it is for all set theory debate be there only. Victor Kosko (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Victor, I'm not entirely familiar with the controversy here, but what you are describing sounds like a WP:POVFORK, where supporters of a minority view want to have a sub-article that only presents their side of the argument. That's not something we do on Wikipedia - if you want to have a space where only your viewpoint is presented you should publish that kind of material somewhere else, not Wikipedia. I understand that can be frustrating - there are some topics where I myself am actually an expert and am very confident that the mainstream sources are wrong, but I understand that on Wikipedia we have to be honest with our readers about what the reliable sources actually say, so I have to wait for the sources to catch up before I try to put that information into Wikipedia. -- LWG ^talk 21:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand what I said. I did not create the article 'controversy over cantor's theory' not it's 2nd talk page, others did. And you did remove a note complaining about unbalanced. A Wikipedia rule is 'all points of view' which is the purpose of that article. The purpose of the note you removed is that any pro set theory article can supposedly violate that view, but obeying that rule by means of a strictly anti set theory article supposedly violates that view by not criticizing it. Likewise the creation evolution pages. And as I said many of the edits violate Wikipedia policy. Victor Kosko (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What changes are you proposing be made to that 'controversy over cantor's theory' article? -- LWG ^talk 00:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand. If you read the entire edit hystory of the article and my entire edit hystory you'd realize no anti set theorest, such as the original creator of the article, can add anti set theory content. Same with creationism and intelligent desighn. The problem is that if you editors want Wikipedia policy to be only your corporate point of view be in wikipedia and opposing points of view be 'balanced' in the sense of solidly criticized, then change your rule thus. But if not, then EACH set theory article violates your rule. For example Wikipedia states for ordinal infinity 1+infinity provably = the same infinity, that is adding an element to the beginning of an infinite never ending sorted list. But infinity+1≠the same infinity, that is...

Adding an element to the END of a NEVERENDING list. But doesn't explain how the set theory community comes to that conclusion.

Ok, so how do they? Since it can't be proven true, that proves it false, that is proves ≠.

Obviously easily refutable.

Obviously Wikipedia should change their 'all points of view' policy to not apply to each Article, but to each Subject.

You should communicate with Dave the originator of the controversy... article about your preceding question Victor Kosko (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Why did you remove this tag? M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I saw the timestamp of 2022 on the first message in the discussion, then your replies, and missed the 3 year gap between the two, so I thought you had already resolved the issue. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 22:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Would you mind restoring the others (regions) that you deleted? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I just did so at Guelmim-Oued Noun. I believe that is the only other one I removed. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 22:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. These are the ones that I could see, there may be others: Béni Mellal-Khénifra, Casablanca-Settat, Drâa-Tafilalet, Rabat-Salé-Kénitra, Souss-Massa, Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, those are from the other day. I'll fix them shortly, or it won't hurt my feelings if you do so yourself. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 22:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather you do it. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've self-reverted those. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help facilitate the dispute resolution process. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 16:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi LWG. Thank you for your work on San Antonio (carrack). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for taking the time to write this article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 09:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the new page patrol! -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 19:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits on the Jesus Wikipedia article; I like that sentence a lot more, so I appreciate it. RottenEgg780 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can I ask for your thoughts on Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/March 2026 proposal? There's some discussion on its talk and at WT:AIC#AI-bot on ANI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: this, please provide examples so I can investigate. Thanks, Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I looked at these two articles Immersaria venusta and Lecanora jamesii. I didn't post my concerns in the other discussion because I didn't want to distract from the main point, but I am glad to share them with you here. Please don't hear this as an accusation, since as I said I feel that your contributions are still constructive and in your case I would rather improve from the base you built than delete and start over, but I did see several things that raised concerns.

In Immersaria venusta, I noticed:

• The body (thallus) is crust-forming (crustose) and cracked into patches (areolate) - treats these as two separate features when as far as I can tell areolate is a subset of crustose, and the cited source only mentioned areolate in the description of venusta.

• Calling it crustose here is not wrong, but perhaps redundant for someone who already knows the terminology. "Crustose" is a more explanatory word that a non-specialist is much more likely to be able to visualize and understand, whereas "areolate" is a technical term. I have spent much time contemplating the balance in presenting technical material to a non-technical audience. (See WP:MTAA) Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• faintly frosted (pruinose), while the thallus margin is also frosted - why "faintly"? No indication in the source that the "frosting" on the thallus is different in quality from the "frosting" between the margin and whatever the first clause is referring to.

• Agreed; 'faintly' is not source-led there, and I'll remove it. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Throughout the article the AI seems to give ad hoc and over-simplified definitions of technical terms. Are frosted/pruinous, cracked into patches/areolate, etc, actually synonymous?

• Per above (explaining technical terms to a non-technical audience), these glosses are meant as plain-English aids rather than formal redefinitions. I also link technical terms to the Glossary of lichen terms, so interested readers can look up more "accurate" definitions if desired.

• forming a more or less continuous crust - "more or less" is inappropriate hedging when the source just says "continuous".

• Agreed; that hedge is unnecessary and I'll change it to 'continuous' (or a more faithful paraphrase of the source).

• The chemistry is variable: ... - seems to be adding an interpretation to what was simply data in the cited source. Is this "variability" actually significant?

• The paper explicitly gives three chemistry states for I. venusta, and in the discussion it treats chemistry as one of the diagnostic traits within Immersaria and notes that planaic acid is newly found in the genus. So the underlying idea of chemical variation is not fanciful. IMO, it is a perfectly reasonable summarization of the source. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• specimens contained confluentic acid (often with 2'-O-methylmicrophyllinic acid), or planaic acid, or (rarely) no detected substances. - seems to be a rendering of the three chemotypes listed in the source, but seems to go beyond the source in explaining what that means.

• This is a prose-based rendering of the source, which literally lists: "confluentic acid, often with 2'-O-methylmicrophyllinic acid; planaic acid; or none, rarely." Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In Lecanora jamesii, I noticed:

• "Habitat and Distribution" section is an uncomfortably close paraphrase of the corresponding portion in the text (though it also seems to insert some speculation).

• I think that's fair. On rechecking Laundon, that paragraph is too close to the source's structure in places and also overreaches in a few details, so I'll rewrite it more cleanly from scratch. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• grows mainly on the bark of deciduous trees and only rarely on worked or decorticated wood - "worked or decorticated" appears to be an invention of the AI.

• That wording wasn't ex nihilo — it was drawn from specimen-level details such as palings (a type of fence made from many pointed sticks, not typically decorticated) and one record on decorticated wood — but you're right that Laundon's actual summary is simply 'rarely on wood'. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Laundon considered it an Atlantic element - "element"?

• That's my wording rather than Laundon's. In European biogeography, an "Atlantic element" refers to a group of species whose distribution is centred in regions with a strongly oceanic (maritime) climate—mild temperatures, high humidity, low seasonal extremes. It's a classificatory label, not a descriptive one. You see it in floristic literature alongside terms like "Mediterranean element", "Boreal element", etc. Wikipedia coverage of biogeographical concepts isn't terribly good, so there's no relevant article I found to link to. Even though it's defensible in a specialist context, it's not a good choice for Wikipedia prose, because it's jargon-heavy and unexplained. I'll replace it with better wording. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• it favours smooth bark in persistently humid, oceanic habitats - "oceanic"? Not found in source.

• Fair; 'oceanic' is inferential there. 'Very humid situations' is a paraphrase that would be closer to Laundon's meaning. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• such as beside rivers and streams, in ravines, or around boggy ground. - "in ravines"? Source just says "over water" - this appears to be the AI inappropriately generalizing from a reported sighting further down that says "on Salix by bog in ravine".

• The species account says "such as over water or boggy ground"; the specimen list includes "by bog in ravine" and "by side of river Dawros". So the issue is generalisation from locality notes, not invention. So those details came from specimen localities rather than Laundon's summary sentence. I'm not sure how much of an issue this is, but I'll reword to something like "Over water or boggy ground" to be safe (or better yet, I'll try and find additional sources to supplement the habitat coverage). Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• (soralia) up to about 1 mm across; these remain scattered rather than merging into a continuous powdery sheet - this appears to be how the AI renders Soralia to 1 mm. diam., scattered over the thallus, never forming a confluent sorediate mass, plane or convex. from the source. Is that a reasonable rendering?

• I think that sentence is substantively faithful editorial rephrasing of Laundon. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are just the things that jumped out at me after a quick look as a layman who knows very little about lichen. Again, in your case I still feel like your editing is constructive, since these issues, if they are issues, seem fairly minor and fairly easy to fix, but these all ping my radar as matching the typical pattern of LLM errors and worthy of investigation. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for taking the time to set these out. I went back to the sources and have responded inline above. I think several of these are fair catches, particularly where the prose either drifted too far into explanatory wording or followed the source too closely in structure. That is useful feedback, and I appreciate it. I can also use this discussion to tighten my prompting and review so that the same sorts of overreach are less likely to recur. Esculenta (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)