I can see what gave you LLM vibes from Mediascriptor's post, but to be honest I get the same impression from the thread's OP. Fruit of the poison tree concerns aside, it introduces the possibility that they're mimicking the OP's syntax._signed,Rosguill^talk21:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For additional verification you can run the last paragraphs of their reply from"I would like to express my sincerest" to"engaged with me during my time here" through a detector of your choice. gptzero.me, which seems to be popular for this application, returns 100% ai-generated.

I did not collapse based off of a detector, but my own judgement along with other technical tells. It was not just the obviously broken formatting.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)22:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: Please I want to know why you nominated the articleJoBlaq for deletion. Did it fail notability? The article got reliable sources. And secondary sources too.2RDD (talk)21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fromthe deletion discussion:"All substantial mentions appear to be the type of unreliable promotional coverage cautioned against by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA".fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)21:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how is it promotional though?2RDD (talk)21:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read articles like[1][2][3] and not found them to be unreliable and promotional, then we simply see things differently. Others will weigh in at the AfD, possibly they will see things as you do as well. Thank you.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)21:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: I have created articles. If you check articles likeFanum, You will find sources of which you will think it's promotional.IShowSpeed andKai Cenat.2RDD (talk)22:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have stated my case, you disagree, that is fine. Please keep further deletion discussion to therelevant page and not on my talk page. Thank you.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)22:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: In this case, you failedNPPHOUR, please follow the recommended NPP practices.2RDD (talk)22:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a new article, it is an article from30 June. I draftified the article[4] citing the same concerns I've raised in the AfD. My concerns were not addressed when you moved it back into articlespace. Do not post on my talk page about this topic, broadly construed, again. Thank you.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)22:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: ohh, I see where the error is. It looks like promotional contents though. You are kinda right.2RDD (talk)22:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like, because I am likely to be indeffed, InsanityClown is going open season on me... SPIs, AfDs, snarky comments on my talk page...

What the hell?_pbp22:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @pbp, my talk page is not an appropriate venue to discuss this, let's keep things to the ANI thread.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)23:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there this user[5], and this user[6] are sock accounts of Prince of Roblox[7] they have very typical ways of editing always based on Islamophobic edits and highly anti-Pakistan and Pro India and Pro Hindu edits just report on the sock investigation page they are well known and admins block this vandal quickly and revert asap as they create dozens of accounts to edit again the articles need protection I think as they just come back as they have no life90.213.219.215 (talk)18:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[8], I wanted to wait until they had more than a single edit each.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)20:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please checkthis survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk)02:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fifteen? something else? of course, hopefully we can interact at happier places than ANI as well. although thank you for your constructive contributions there andWT:AICNicheSports (talk)01:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fifteen is fine, 15,224 is another common choice, and fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four works as well if you'd like to pad out the(+bytecount). Thanks for your LLM cleanup efforts also.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fifteen it is!NicheSports (talk)01:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. There's a discussion over atWP:RSN#Voice123 as a source if you are interested in it. Thanks,Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)05:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I do apologize if I was a little desperate and confused in mygood-faith efforts to improve theEmily Neves article, especially with regards to finding potential sources for her early life. Also, I've opened a discussion atTalk:Emily Neves#B-class/GA-class efforts, if you are interested in helping out of course. Thanks,sjones23 (talk -contributions)20:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Googled up the ZIP code minutes ago. --Slgrandson(How's myegg-throwing coleslaw?)23:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​A reasonable guess! But there's no relation to any ZIP codes.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)23:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're thesixth one, is that it?Mathglot (talk)23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no relation to any numeric sequence or mathematics in general.​fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)00:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet thecriteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. atWP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators arenot permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators willautomatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted theAccess to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy viaSpecial:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. OnSpecial:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should useSpecial:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access isgenerally not allowed (e.g.~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward3RR, but notHey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• SeeWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via theUser Info card, available inPreferences →Appearance →Advanced options →Enable theuser info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly,Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation atWikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written byMz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk)02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your message about my edit on theBattle for Dream Island page about my edit adding inFlash-animated. This hasn't been an issue with other web series Wikipedia pages?Eddsworld has the same "Flash-animated" marking too though suddenly no one bats an eye? None of the first paragraph inBattle for Dream Island contains any sources to begin with so I'm lost here.ConeKota (talk)22:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ConeKota As explained on your talk page, the lede needs to followWP:LEADCITE, which requires that all information in it besupported.Either with a citation in the lede,or the information being present and supported with a citation in the body.This edit has no supporting citation in the lede, and is not present nor supported in the body.

This hasn't been an issue with other web series Wikipedia pages? – If you find other pages with information that is not compliant withWP:V andWP:LEADCITE, then pleasebe bold and correct it. The fact that there exist other places in the encyclopedia where the verifiability policy has failed to be upheld, does not mean we can ignore it elsewhere.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)22:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to point you to the broaderWP:LEAD guideline, and specifically highlight the first sentence which states that a lead is asummary of [an article's] most important contents.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)22:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you're pretty on top of the GMC SPI stuff—certainly one of the more interesting LTAs I've encountered. I was looking at the policy for TAIV, and I think it may be worthwhile setting up a "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Example/TAIV disclosure" page for that case so TAIV evidence can be discussed a bit more openly before being revdel'd as soon as the matter is addressed by an admin. Let me know your thoughts. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)06:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy exception allowing for such public disclosures whenreasonably believed to be necessary is somewhat vague and doesn't fill me with confidence, depends on if an SPI for a long-term actor like GMC is anappropriate [venue]. An LTA page is the only type explicitly stated, and those feature confirmed instances, whereas active SPI reports feature probable instances. I'd run it by one of theombuds first.​fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)07:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloFifteen thousand two hundred twenty four! Not quite sure if to best raise that here or at the respective talk page(s): You have (among others)undone contributions toList of fictional religions based onWP:PROMO andcollapsed some suggestions. I don't really know about these types of issues, could you perhaps say more on what's the basis? I've seen that that user has focussed on contributions but that one author, so the conflict of interest hangs in the air. But having looked at it without prior knowledge, I would have thought that the inclusion inList of fictional religions was warranted, being based on a presumably reliable academic paper, which has been cited 33 times according to Google Scholar, with the topic also showing up inother reliable sources. So in case there was a conflict of interested, but the contribution was worthwhile anyway, what would be the way to handle that? Likewise I personally have no experience of how to identify LLM-generated content, but the suggestions seemed pretty specific (as well as reasonable), which to me suggested understanding of the topic rather than general understanding of language. Thanks for sharing your perspective!Daranios (talk)11:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to share my reasoning. What I found is that the KatieKat account has inserted 12 references to works by "Zoe Alderton" across multiple articles, sometimes even inserting Alderton into the text itself[9][10], and has inserted 0 references from any other sources. Then there is their other account at~2025-31601-76 which inserted an additional 19+ references, with more insertions of Alderton[11][12] and their book[13][14][15][16] directly into article text, sometimes thrice in a single article[17][18][19].

I then evaluated their contributions to talk pages and found evidence of LLM use, some clearer signs of this are **markdown**[20][21], andhallucinations:[22] (there are no "Media Influence" or "Examples" sections)[23] (no "Jediism" in article, the suggested see also link to "related article"Religion in science fiction goes to a deleted article).

When considering the above, I found the pattern of edits fit the description ofWP:REFSPAM, a form of promotional editing, and reverted the additions.

That said, if you believe that the edit toList of fictional religions, or any of the others, improve the encyclopedia, then please feel free to undo my reversion! And if you have any further questions I'd be happy to answer them.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)14:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details! I did not realize the "hallucinations", showing me again how strong AI already is while having severe weaknesses at the same time. I have restored the Snapeism in theList of fictional religions with additional source for broader basis, as I believe in that scope it's warranted.Daranios (talk)11:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For initiating the cleanup page template development with your suggestions atWikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup § Format for the noticeboard. We've sometimes disagreed about the implementation, but hopefully you see our conversations as constructive, and you were the one who got this going. My thanks!

NicheSports (talk)22:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, hopefully the resulting templates will be helpful.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)16:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was this user ever filed in an SPI as it seems related to SCOT andCase No. 9?CNMall41 (talk)20:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, their most interesting interactions are atWorking Women (TV series),Chaand Raat,Neelofar,Yousuf Bashir Qureshi,Bilal Lashari,Case No. 9, andMann Jogi (note the AFC/R use there). Not sure it's enough on behavior alone since SCOT socks are so prolific, but it might be enough for CU.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)18:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that some information you removed from Argentina at the 2017 World Games was actually verifiable from the article sourced. Although I did not provide sources for everything—because the medals was already included in the boxes—I translated that content from the Spanish Wikipedia. I am involved in a project that focuses on translating articles from the Spanish Wikipedia.

Please take greater care when making edits. You could have opened a conversation before removing the content.

Thank you.Orlando Davis (talk)01:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Orlando Davis,

WP:LEADCITE only applies when information is verifiable in the body, the information in the body was not. Additionally other information was added which was absent from the body in any form. Please avoid adding unverifiable information, it is the sole responsibility of the editor adding information to ensure that is is verifiable. You can read more about this requirement atWP:BURDEN, which is a part of the coreWP:VERIFIABILITY policy.

Additionally yourcorrective edit has also failed to verify the information within, and despite the appearance of providing two different references, they both link to the same place, and that place also does not verify the added information. You are invited to remedy this by adding morecitations perWP:BURDEN, or to self revert. If you wish to discuss this further then please start a discussion on the talk page andping me to it. Thank you.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material was verifiable in the source. It’s not that the information wasn’t sourced — it’s that you couldn’t find the source.

1. LOS OLVIDADOS, by Ernesto Rodriguez III — on Olímpicos Argentinos (archived via the Internet Archive) — 20 July 2017

I do admit that there were a couple of sentences that weren’t in that source, which is why I removed them and supported the medals with another source:

1. Medal history of The World Games — on International World Games Association (IWGA) official site. Available at:

You should have only removed contentonly if you knew for a fact that the source was fake, or removed only the sentences that weren’t backed — but not the entire section. It’s not a fake source. not finding the link is not enough.Orlando Davis (talk)01:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only sentence that wasn't backed was " Argentina broke its record of medals, which was accomplished in 2009 in Kaohsiung and achieved the best performance in its history."

Which I have now backed with this source:La historia de Argentina en los Juegos Mundiales And you deleted 150 words, when there appears to be 15 words that were not sourced.Orlando Davis (talk)02:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the reference,Ernesto Rodriguez III, Ernesto. (2017,July 07). "LOS OLVIDADOS." proved to be entirely unlocatable for me despite many efforts. I'd like to take a moment to compare it against thecontemporary article for posterity:

• It was Argentina's eleventh World Games – This would be very difficult for the source to support, since it opens by stating it isla décima edición, or "the tenth edition", of the World Games. I am using a model-based translation service though, so perhaps it is incorrect.
• one of 102 countries – Source only statedmás de un centenar de naciones, or "more than a hundred", maybe another translation issue on my end.
• only athletes who could fund their own trips were able to compete – According to the source Elizabeth Soler did not self-fund.
• Argentina won six medals ... – Wasn't in source, nor supported in body.
• Argentina broke its record of medals, which was accomplished in 2009 in Kaohsiung – Wasn't in source, nor in body.

Thank you for adding additional references and changing information to meetWP:V. There do still exist verifiability issues (eleventh World Games,100 countries,fund their own trips), but good progress has been made.

Concerning the edit summary forSpecial:Diff/1324347293I re-added information in the intro about the 27 male athletes and 16 females, since it is in the body of the article, I would like to again point you towardsWP:LEADCITE, which states that citations may be forgone in the lead toavoid redundant citations. If the information in the body is uncited, then there are no redundant citations to avoid, and a citation needs to be provided to satisfyWP:V. (in this particular instance Olímpicos Argentinos also supports the information, so this guidance is for future edits)

If you have found this situation disagreeable, then I would suggest taking steps to ensure that information that is added in the future is verifiable from the first edit. Any further discussion on this topic can be held on the article's talk page, but not here.

Thank you for helping to improve the encyclopedia!fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)03:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOS OLVIDADOS, by Ernesto Rodriguez III — on Olímpicos Argentinos (archived via the Internet Archive) — 20 July 2017

What do you mean?Orlando Davis (talk)03:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've since seen that you provided that reference, the comparison above is that reference against the contemporary article.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)03:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis you are requested to refrain from further commenting about this on my talk page, the discussion has become unproductive. Thank you.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)03:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Have a good night.Orlando Davis (talk)04:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For the leadership and work at AINB. Thank you fifteenNicheSports (talk)00:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your ideal set of policies on LLMs? Why do you oppose thellm-user user right idea? I'm not married to it myself.NicheSports (talk)00:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the typical issues, there are some unsolvable systemic problems with LLMs that cannot be avoided even if the user is perfectly eternally vigilant. I've elaborated on this in three comments atWikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 25#Delving deep into the key aspects of WikiEd's new AI training materials that signify enduring stuff.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)00:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your message reverting my edit. I want to clarify that I am a human editor, not a bot.

I want to be honest: I did use AI tools, but **only to automatically format the citations**, because the wiki-code is very different between languages and it is hard to do manually.

However, the information is real. I am not an expert, just a learner trying to do things ethically. I have spent hours updating the actor's data on **Wikidata** and improving the Spanish and Catalan articles. I simply wanted to bring that verified data to the English version.

My English is a bit rusty, so I used translation tools for the text. That is likely why it sounded "robotic" to you. But the facts are correct.

Instead of deleting everything, could you please help me correct the grammar? I really want to fix the article with good data. Thanks.

Llimerol (talk)02:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use LLMs to generate comments like this, we want to hear your own words and thoughts as you've had them (and LLMs hallucinate, I never said nor implied "robotic"), seeWP:AITALK.

I did use AI tools, but **only to automatically format the citations** – From a glance at the text I can tell you this is not correct. Perhaps this is what the model was initially prompted to do, but it's not all the model did.

But the facts are correct. – The edit citesWP:IMDB, a depreciated source, 17 times. Even then, IMDB still often fails to support the associated text. The entire edit failsWP:V, which our policy onbiographies of living people requires weadherestrictly to. If the content of that edit is reflective of the quality of the Spanish Wikipedia's article, then that article should in no way be translated to enwiki.

Instead of deleting everything, could you please help me correct the grammar? – Even discounting the pervasive verifiability issues, most editors, myself included, have very little desire to cleanup after LLM output. Removal is the appropriate remedy in this instance.

Thank you for discussing this.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)03:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such detailed comments. I apologize, and first I will manually review the article and replace the IMDB references with reliable Turkish secondary sources (mainstream newspapers like Hürriyet and Milliyet, and official websites of broadcasters like ATV and Kanal D, etc.).Llimerol (talk)17:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EditedPeshwa with sources and mentions. Hope it is cleared now.Andybro03 (talk)11:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Hello. Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for your efforts as a Wikipedian, especially with regards to the AI cleanup, as well as wishing you a very joyous holiday season.sjones23 (talk -contributions)08:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]