User talk:Phxlm

Hi Phxlm! I saw you interested in several Hmar and Mizo pages. May i know whether you are Hmar or Mizo? Vankal (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

hmar kanih :) Phxlm (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Sikpui Ruoi kha ka lo hmua, i thaw tha top👌 Vankal (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haflong, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeme Naga was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The article Sikpui Ruoi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

page created using AI, violation of WP:NEWLLM

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. DraconicDark (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to edit Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), you may be blocked from editing. Adding LLM-generated content is prohibited on Wikipedia. DraconicDark (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've read the article on the policy on what is allowed and im pretty sure my use of LLM is allowed.

1)Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the sources cited.

2)Editors are permitted to use LLMs to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia, but must follow the guidance laid out at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation. Unreviewed or poorly-reviewed LLM translations often result in similar policy violations to content generated from scratch.

If the article is properly cited and there are no hallucinations, what is your concern? Is there a blanket ban on LLM use. Please proceed with the deletion if you're so sure its LLM generated beyond the allowed use cases. Phxlm (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that you have misunderstood the NOLLM guideline, because AI-generated material is in fact not permitted on the English Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Phxlm: the exceptions to WP:NOLLM are very narrow and basically don't permit anything that the spell checker in your browser can't do better. You can actually think of it as a "blanket ban" for all practical purposes and intentions. Hallucinations and citations are not the only concerns, and you need to read all sources that you cite yourself. There are a lot of problems with AI-generated edits, which is why they are not allowed on the English Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Please go ahead and nominate the article to WP:SPEEDY then if you think Wikipedia would be better off without it cuz it seems you've made up your mind and that i somehow misunderstood WP:NOLLM written in plain English. I'd ask to raise to WP:NORN but since you've made it clear verifiability doesn't matter then i suppose there is no need. There are alternatives to deletion in WP:AFD and WP:AICGUIDE but i suppose these policies dont matter either.
Phxlm (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I assumed since WP:LLMRESP and WP:LLMRESEARCH exist,there is no blanket ban on LLM use. I work offline and i do read the sources, infact i work offline because my sources are in PDFs and i do write the articles but please go ahead and nominate for deletion because i feel this is a targeted harrassment over personal interpretation of policies. The article wasn't entirely my contribution alone, so i also feel its unfair and an abuse of administrative tools that this was nominated to WP:PROD when the talk page was open and a cleanup could have been made according to WP:AICGUIDE but please feel free to correct me as i don't spend all my time on wiki and have other priorities besides it. Phxlm (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may be related to you. The thread is User:Phxlm. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for misusing large language models and not disclosing the full extent of your LLM use when the issue was raised, as described in the AI noticeboard discussion.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  — Newslinger talk 22:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my most recent comment in the AI noticeboard discussion, if you give a complete account of your LLM use, then I would support reducing your block to an article-space block, which would allow submitting drafts. This block does not affect your ability to continue working on the Hmar Wikipedia incubator project, which can set its own guidelines for LLM-generated content. — Newslinger talk 23:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I will not be appealing the block. When you asked for the source English article i used and i provided it, you ignored it conveniently and now you're claiming that i didn't disclose everything. I explicitly said i used Special:Diff/1305743675 for the initial article and merged my edits with Special:Diff/1344615586 which resulted in Special:Permalink/1368355938 which is #4. your next response was that Special:Permalink/1368355938 can not be #1 which i never claimed it was.

The stated reason for the block that i didn't fully disclose the extent of my use of LLMs is not true either. I am the only one on the noticeboard taking the time and going the length to explain myself. I'd like to take this "indefinite ban" in good faith but i am pretty sure this is done to humiliate me cuz there is no valid reason for the block. Phxlm (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I have only ever worked on three articles. and one of them is an original contribution. Even if all three of them were AI generated, escalating this to an indefinite ban without any prior warnings i don't think counts as persistent LLM use or is warranted. The warning on my page by User:DraconicDark and my summon on WP:AIN happened within the same session. I displayed my edits were done in good faith because i wanted to contribute to the Hmar Incubator Project and in part due to whats written in WP:NEWLLM. I have also responded to every question and explained the rationale behind my approach. It would have been acceptable if i was let off with a warning if i was actually knowingly breaking policy but the offer i got was a "reduced block" when i was performing well within policies and guidelines. That is insulting.

Before the summon i was never once asked how i used AI. or if i used AI.

User:Gnomingstuff came close on Sikpui Ruoi's talk page but they did not infact ask me a question, they wanted me to validate their assumption. It could have been a simple "did you use AI?' but they instead accused me of "Sealioning" like we've had any interaction before when infact nobody had even raised the issue beforehand. I do not think their conduct was appropriate. It could have been in part due to the discussion i started on the talk page itself but its not unreasonable to expect maintainers to conduct themselves , i think in fact it should be policy if it already isnt.

The discussion i started on the talk page was largely in part due to AFC reviewers citing non-sensical reasons for rejection. I have seen articles submitted that does not meet the standards cited as reasons to reject get accepted. One blaringly nonsensical reason was a AFC reviewer citing "Grammar not good" when the summary they provided was ridden with grammatical mistakes.

When i decided ill just move the article to mainspace i was told by a maintainer that i had to "go through the proper channels" and "wait my turn" when i questioned them "whats the point of having the priviledge of being able to move an article to mainspace if users like them just move it back to draft" i was ignored. They in effect took full advantage of the priviledge they have and enforce artificial standards not supported by any wikipedia policy. Surely there is a reason users can move articles to mainspace without going through AFC.

User:Gurkubondinn is one such user enforcing standards according to their own interpretation of the policy fueled purely by assumptions of what a non-priviledged contributor might be infringing on as you can check from the comment they left on my talk page because they never once asked me any questions before raising it to WP:AIN but rather insisted i misunderstood something written in plain English. The logical conclusion to make was "they must have used LLMs for either one of the two allowed use cases" which would also have been in accordancce with Wikipedias "Assume Good Faith" but sadly that didn't happen. If you check their talk page you will come accross a comment they made claiming they 'helped draft' the WP:NOLLM policy and bluntly dismiss a user arguing use of AI is allowed by the policy which again is a pretty wild conduct for a priviledged with a responsibility because they should have inquired, guided and explained the difference between use of AI in generating articles from scratch and the use of AI in assistive tasks.

User:DraconicDark got called out on WP:AIN as well for overusing WP:NEWLLM who incidentally, is the one responsible for the mess. and they're not much different either from User:Gurkubondinn cuz they too never engaged with the talk page on Sikpui Ruoi, never asked any questions but went straight to nominating the article to PROD. Which is a supported policy but not without guidelines because the article infact was a translation from Hmar to English which once again is supported according to the text on WP:NOLLM

And for User:Newslinger to ban me citing "I did not disclose the extent of my use of AI" when i responded to every question and took the initiative to explain myself before anyone even asked, was dishonest. As if the disclosure doesn't count if i don't admit that the scope of my use of LLMs isn't supported by policy. If you check my responses on WP:AIN you can see, i did not hide anything, if anything is left out, it's not intentional. If theres something left out, ask the question, it's not like i am not responding. I took an article, expanded it in Hmar, translated it back into English, somehow is hard to believe even though i have the article up on Hmar Incubator exactly like i claimed. So basically this ban is largely due to suspicion on the off chance that i generated the article in English then wrote the translation for it, which would have been justified if i didnt have the article up on the incubator days prior to me being questioned, like i somehow planned that ill upload a translation on a Hmar Incubator Project before i get caught so i can use it as an excuse. Phxlm (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocks are not "to humiliate" users, they are to protect the project from disruption. Use of AI and LLM is becoming one of the more common reasons for blocks these days. You are not banned, which means that any uninvolved administrator can decide to unblock you. If you want to appeal the block, you should read WP:GAB to understand what that administrator would want to see to unblock you.

Another thing that is concerning to me is that when your LLM use was noticed in User talk:Phxlm/Archive 1 § Your submission at Articles for creation: Sikpui Ruoi (June 4), you said that you used ai to make grammatical corrections but you are now saying that it was infact was a translation ... is supported according to the text on WP:NOLLM. You've now given two different accounts for how you used an LLM on that article, which makes it hard to believe either of them. You've also reacted with hostility and insulted other editors when they have asked you about this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right about the discrepancy because i did not think it was necessary to reveal everything up until this point, grammatical corrections is one aspect of the translation tasks. Translation is never one shot and subsequent exchanges are grammatical corrections.

Like how you don't necessary say "i drove a Honda Civic i own to go to the Supermarket". It's only when a mall guard watching you from the distance assumes you walked to the supermarket and then accuse you of shoplifting without ever asking if you have the receipts then the Manager comes along, investigates the situation and promptly kicks you out because the color of the receipts don't match and then they justify their actions by claiming you didn't show all the receipts while actively refusing to see the receipt or acknowledge the error in their judgement. And when they got called out, they go and check the CCTV footage and come back saying, yeah we didn't see you drive here last week so there's no way you could have transported the extra long dildo you claim you came to return. Also calling out editors isn't hostile behavior, it's a core feature of a healthy community. You don't label news anchors hostile when they call out politicians. Phxlm (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I would like to know why i was blocked. The stated reason of not "disclosing the full extent of LLM use" does not seem accurate to me because : 1) I provided the reason why i was using LLM's in the first place. 2) My use of LLM was in part due to the policy written in WP:NOLLM and in my case it was translation assistance 3) I responded to every question asked 4) I had only worked on 3 articles Sikpui Ruoi which is an original article that i wrote in Hmar, Muolhoi which i expanded on in Hmar and Haflong which i did not use an AI to edit but was reverted merely due to suspicion. Both instances of my AI use are manually verified accoriding to WP:NOLLM. I would like to know what i'm not disclosing or does "disclosing" mean admiting i used LLMs in a way that does is not supported by policy . Thanks Phxlm (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Phxlm, your explanations are inadequate because they do not explain where all of the additional information (as I explained in the noticeboard discussion, "five extra citations, a paragraph covering the 2003 Dimasa–Hmar ethnic conflict, a sentence about Mizo (Lushai) being used by Kuki-Chin groups, and a paragraph covering the Indigenous Peoples' Forum (IPF)"), originated from. In one of your noticeboard comments and in your comment above, you are saying, "i used Special:Diff/1305743675 for the initial article and merged my edits with Special:Diff/1344615586 which resulted in Special:Permalink/1368355938 which is #4". However, there are very few differences between Special:Permalink/1305743675 and Special:Permalink/1344615586 (see comparison at Special:Diff/1305743675/1344615586), and merging the versions together cannot account for all of the additional information in incubator:Special:Permalink/7275847 (#2/#3) and Special:Diff/1360990183 (#4). All of these additional sources and paragraphs cannot come from translation alone, particularly in the way you described ("translating it manually to Hmar").

The problem here is that you have been using WP:NOLLM to justify your addition of what you describe as "me taking English articles and translating it manually to Hmar and retranslating it back to English using LLMs to align them". However, because the process of translating from English to Hmar and then back to English again cannot possibly generate additional citations (not even "due to Hmar being a more descriptive language", as you have said), you have effectively gamed the WP:LLMT guideline to present an LLM-expanded article (which is not allowed per WP:LLM) as an LLM-translated article. Your edit Special:Diff/1368364970 to the Haflong article, which contains non-wikitext markup, excessive boldface, and "rich cultural tapestry", shows your LLM use more clearly.

When LLM misuse issues are raised and the editor in question does not disclose the full extent of their LLM misuse, the standard course of action is to issue a block to prevent further LLM misuse. This is not to "humiliate" you, but to prevent further LLM misuse on the project. In the AI noticeboard discussion, every question was an opportunity for you to fully disclose your LLM use, but you repeatedly responded by claiming that the Muolhoi article gained all of the additional information from being translated to Hmar and back to English, which is not an adequate explanation for the reasons mentioned above. If you give a complete account of your LLM use, then a block reduction to article-space would allow you to work on drafts and establish a positive track record of editing that can be used to support a future block appeal. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC); added missing word 09:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Your argument is basically since i claimed "translation", any expansion on my end instantly invalidates it cuz translations can't generate more text, that sounds very logical, but it's also very dishonest cuz you're very conveniently ignoring the fact that i did say i was expanding the articles as well. multiple times.

And like i said on my response on top. I have maintained that i took the article, expanded it in Hmar and then translated it back to English and i have the article on the incubator to prove it. This should have been easier to believe cuz i did show proof of work and you should have been more inclined to believe me due to WP:AGF. but you would rather believe the opposite like i somehow planned to use the article on the incubator to justify myself, based on your description of me "gaming" the system. Mental Gymnastics to validate an opinion.

I like to use bolds on articles because i think certain nouns and adjectives should be in bolds. , "rich cultural tapestry" was mentioned twice, if you think that's excessive thats your opinion but English is my 6th language so it's neither honest or fair that you're making judgements based off of my choice of words that coincided with a known AI buzzword, from a native speaker's lens. And what non wikitext markup are you talking about? do you mean my use of <br> and *asterisks* and markdown syntax ? I did upload an image today, way before you mentioned this but its a screenshot of my local directory that shows i write the articles in markdown if that helps explain why there could be some markdown artifacts in the article.

But i suppose you'll claim this was pre-planned too cuz i saw some asterisks in the articles.

The only plausible sign of LLM use in my contribution history is bulk edits and that doesn't count cuz alot of users work offline.

But moving on, can you please explain your rationale? what am i exactly?

1) If you think i'm sincere about my work on the incubator, you should also believe i'm sincere with my claims. cuz how does it work that i'm honest about everything else but deceptive about how i'm creating the articles when they are copies?? why would i take the effort to generate the article in English and then translate it to Hmar when i can just generate the article in Hmar or Mizo?

2) If you think i'm malicious, isn't it far-fetched to believe that i planned to use the Hmar article to make excuses, Uploading it days before i supposedly got caught? Why would i even admit that i used LLMs ?

3)?????

Your portrayal of me seems to be in an impossible third category.

I don't want a block reduction and im not appealing the ban either. I'm just showing you the contradiction in your logic and how massively you mishandled this mess.

PS: I'm only using bolds here in this response cuz you mentioned it. Not because i said i like using it. I'm sure without this disclaimer someone will argue i only started using it after this point because that's the level of intellectual honesty i've experienced in these exchanges. Phxlm (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

In Special:Diff/1368364970 on the Haflong article, on top of the Markdown, the excessive boldface, and "rich cultural tapestry", you also cited the following sources:

• The Mizo Hills: Society, State and Identity, a nonexistent publication that does not appear in Sajal Nag's bibliography or on the Oxford University Press website. The ISBN in your citation, 978-0199467617, corresponds to a book about a different topic that was written by a different author.
• "Assam: Major Water Supply Project for Haflong Underway", which leads to a nonexistent page on the website of The Assam Tribune

I am not going to unblock you, but you are free to request an unblock using the instructions in the block notice if you would like a second opinion. — Newslinger talk 16:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Noting for the record my CU block of Wangchingfet (talk · contribs), who is Confirmed to this account. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  The sockpuppet was even active before Phxlm was blocked.. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)