Hi @NicheSports! I saw that you ended up taking down the kimarite frequency table you made and was wondering if you could share the code you used for it so I could at least have it for myself and keep it updated. I really liked the table when I first saw it because it helped me learn about which kimarite are most common and look into the funny rare ones/see when they last happened. I think it was a great addition to the article, and it's a shame not everyone liked it. If you're a sumo fan, I hope you're enjoying the basho. Thanks for helping me get into this great sport!EclecticBonobo (talk)03:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, glad that you found it interesting! I didn't understand the feedback from the Sumo project people but I'm not trying to go against consensus so I took it down. I do have the source code available but haven't run it since the March basho. Give me a few weeks and I'll clean it up and add a README and then send you an invite to a private github repo with the code. Can you email me your github username?NicheSports (talk)14:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @NicheSports! I saw you were reverting LLM material on certain articles. Good work! I found some LLM writing on the articleAtonement by none other than Bookleo, but they're so old I don't know how to revert them properly. What can I do?C.eddy.garcia (talk)14:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the message. The answer is that it depends. I've been following the approach discussed atWT:AIC § Guidance on handling article with mostly minor edits subsequent to LLM-rewrite. To determine whether "multiple material edits" have been made subsequent to the LLM content addition, I look at the diff of all changes that have been made after Bookleo's last edit to the article. ForAtonement that would bethis. And honestly I don't think this hits the standard of "multiple material edits" - it was mostly copy-editing and fixing references other than the removal of the LLM-generated "Critical Reviews" section. So in this case, I think you can manually restore the latest edit prior to Bookleo's rewrite, which would bethis. Then I would leave a note on the article talk page explaining why you reverted to the earlier version. You can leave a link toWT:AIC § yet another large swath of AI edits and mention it was also discussed at ANI so that people understand there is some community consensus for this type of significant reversion. In the hundreds of LLM reversions I have done in the past month, I have only had one editor object to the reversion, and here is how I handled that situation[1].NicheSports (talk)15:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NicheSports. Per your request, your account has beengrantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals usingtemporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that isonly to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Accessmust not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or moreIP addresses (using theCIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visitingSpecial:Preferences. Happy editing!—Femke 🐦 (talk)15:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I received a comment on my work for the Goro Dati Sfera section that was flagged. I did use an AI for writing assistance, but I edited and checked line by line, I fact checked everything. Instead of taking down what I spent hours checking, could it be reviewed please? The "inaccuracy" is on par with the rest of the wiki page where I cited the correct source but not a page number, if I need to retrieve the page number I will, and I also used text directly from the credible websites I sourced and wrote my own potions. While I had Ai help me keep my citations in order and proofread, that is my work and I can verify it and correct my know errors in citation that I was awaiting feedback on. Can my work please be reinstated?N.benavides25 (talk)03:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, additionally I was flagged for my summary prose not matching my contribution prose. My apologies, but the shorthand colloquial speech I used for my summary was not professional; since I had spent hours on that project and simply wanted it up and reviewed. I was impatient and exhausted which is reflected in my time of publishing, which was into the wee hours of the morning. I also did not use the sandbox in my haste and due to my Wikipedia impatience. Can I have my work properly reviewed? I also realized the links bare an Ai signature because I had them formatted through there. They are all real links that I checked myself but had the misfortune of using Ai to proofread my work because I was so tired.N.benavides25 (talk)03:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
