Hello, Gnomingstuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete theWikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit theTeahouse to ask questions or seek help.
I've reviewedthis a few times now. Do you just search article space for certain phrases? Do you ever try to prioritize recent changes - if so, how do you do this? Do you ever use any edit filters?NicheSports (talk)19:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly searching article space, manually scanning the results for anything that doesn't seem like a false positive, finding the diff, and tagging the article only if I'm more than... maybe like 80% certain it was AI. What kind of gets lost is how much I'm not tagging -- a lot of the results seem fine so I don't check them, and even with the ones I do check, a lot do feel like AI but not enough for me to defend. I do check the feed of newcomer tasks for expanding articles, but other than that I don't prioritize recent changes either way.
More specifically:
Words or phrases in combination -- searching for just one produces way too many false positives. For instance"aligns with" "underscore", or something longer like"highlighting the significance" or whatever.
A few regex searches for markdown and formatting, for instanceinsource:/for \*T/ orinsource:/\=\= Key I/. I try to keep these narrow because otherwise it gets hard on the server, and you have to be really finicky so it doesn't catch normal wikitext.
If an edit is really blatant I check the rest of the user's contributions to see whether the rest of them are too. Often they fall into that gray area of "it feels like AI but nothing immediately stands out," or "their last 2 edits this week were clearly ChatGPT but with this one I can't point to anything specific." I usually check their talk page to see if anyone else's brought it up, or if they're active ask for clarification.
If it's a student edit I sometimes check the rest of the edits from the class page, given thatlike 90% of students are using AI now apparently, but these tend to fall into that gray area a lot.
Makes sense, this is what I guessed. Btw, have you checked this out:Special:AbuseFilter/1325 ([filter log)? It doesn't capture everything, but from what I've spot checked today it has a pretty low false positive rate. Maybe you can make suggestions for a new edit filter over atWP:EFR that covers a set of your phrasing-based searches. Could help crowdsource cleanup instead of having to do it all yourself...NicheSports (talk)20:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that, yeah -- haven't really come up with anything solid enough for an edit filter though, and imo undetected LLM text is probably more of an issue since there are people monitoring recent changes already.Gnomingstuff (talk)20:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to thank you for the work you do, especially exposing LLM generated content. In fact LLM articles are being dumped in Wikiedia faster than most NPPers recognise them for what they are. We generally avoid publishing the 'AI tells' atWP:NPP and other advice pages in order to avoidWP:Beans, but now that LLM use is so prevalent maybe we should now rethink it.
Just wanted to say this talk page and your articles have been enlightening. Appreciate you documenting the tools and approaches to fighting to keeping Wikipedia accurate and hallucination-free.StereoTypo (talk)20:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello--I wanted to reach out because you flagged one of my student's pages for LLM. (Ijaw people) I know that earlier student submissions were getting flagged by Pangram; this one was not. In reviewing the edits made, I have no reason to believe that the submission used LLM, but want to reach out directly to start the conversation.Barro1r (talk)02:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)barro1r[reply]
Hi -- this isn't referring to your students' edits, unless you taught a class in fall 2024. It's specifically about the edits by Bondwagon, which display strongindicators of LLM use that weren't there prior to their edits. For instance,in this one edit alone we have:
Promotional language:The traditional attire of the Ijaw people reflects both elegance and cultural significance, incorporating rich fabrics and intricate accessories that showcase their heritage.,reflect the rich history, cultural pride, and social standing...
AI vocabulary:emphasize the importance,furtheremphasizing the wearer's elevated status,often adorned withintricate patterns,
Negative parallelism:together, these attiresnot only display the Ijaw people’s taste for elegancebut also...;The Don dress wasnot just a garment,but a powerful symbol...
Undue emphasis on symbolism: Most of the stuff above but also want to point outa powerful symbol of power because, well, lol.
Other lesser-signal signs such as rule of three, etc.
@Gnomingstuff: I notice that you have been marking certain pages (True Will,Worship of heavenly bodies) as possibly AI-generated because they were mostly written by Skyerise. Particularly you claim that she addedenormous swath[es] of AI-generated text to many articles.
Skyerise is currently indef'd for unrelated reasons and cannot defend herself, however, for all of her problems -- and indeed she had them -- she was a prolific editor for nearly 20 years, and she was providing substantial content long beforeChatGPT or other LLM tools were available.
It's easy tosay that she was adding AI slop, but it is incredibly unlikely for this user in particular. None of the content on either True Will or Worship seem AI-generated to me. On what grounds are you making these claims?wound theology◈04:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please readWP:AISIGNS. Once you do that, you will notice indications of LLM use all over the place. They are the exact same tells that show up in near-identical fashion across other AI edits, and very infrequently before LLMs:
Examples fromTrue Will (note that all of this comes from the post-2024 edits, not the 2022 ones):
Undue emphasis on symbolism and importance:Crowley's teachings on True Will have influenced a wide range of spiritual and philosophical traditions,contributing to a broader understanding of purpose and self-realization.
Negative parallelisms:True Will isnot only a philosophical conceptbut also a practical guide for living within Thelemic communities
AI vocabulary: Really just all over the damn place but here's a doozy:He stresses the distinction between True Will and personal desires,highlighting the importance of aligning with one's higher purpose
Undue emphasis on symbolism and importance:This connection between Sopdet and the Nile floodunderscores the profound link between celestial phenomena and earthly prosperity in ancient Egyptian culture.
Negative parallelisms:During the Zhou dynasty, Tiannot only became synonymous with the physical skybut also embodied the divine will, representing the moral order of the universe
Section summaries:Overall, astrotheology in ancient Egypt underscores the civilization's deeply ingrained belief in the cosmic order and its integration into the fabric of their spiritual and cultural practices.
AI vocabulary: Once again all over the place, including in many of the above examples, but here's three in one sentence:The layout and orientation of these structures were often designed toalign with significant celestial occurrences,emphasizing the interplay between the earthly and celestial realms.
Apologies for being short; I am just very tired of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again when the AI signs page (which cites several actual studies on the topic of LLM-generated text, one of which I havereplicated here) is freely available for anybody to read at any time. I'm also not going through their edits specifically; they just keep popping up in the keyword searches I use to look for potentially AI-generated articles.Gnomingstuff (talk)05:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains that in adding these templates, it would be useful to actually understand why you are making such claims, especially regarding a prolific and valuable editor who, despite being brought toWP:ANI for practically every issue under the sun, was never accused of such issues during her tenure. When asked why you added the template toWorship of heavenly bodies, your response was simply that Skyerise added it. It is a bit unrealistic to expect me, or any other editor, to do a blame analysis of the page and try to understand your reasoning.
Anyone who makes a good-faith effort to read our page on AI signs would be able to identify these signs in less than 5 minutes. The fact that they were never accused is not surprising, because no one was really looking for AI-generated text until August of this year (as can be seen in the uptick of AI-related posts on ANI since then).
Even if you want to argue that this editor coincidentally just happens to use all of the indicators of text that every other AI article uses, in the exact same way that AI uses them, this does not seem to be true. Their edits before 2023 read very differently. For instance, here isevery change they made toWorship of heavenly bodies between October 2021 and August 2022 (before ChatGPT came out). None of the above signs are present in any of those older edits.Gnomingstuff (talk)06:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to reiterate this:The point remains that in adding these templates, it would be useful to actually understand why you are making such claims [...] It is a bit unrealistic to expect me, or any other editor, to do a blame analysis of the page and try to understand your reasoning. Skyerise is gone and I had nothing but conflicts with her when she was here, for the record; I had problems with her style and content regardless of AI assistance.wound theology◈05:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I'm actually communicating here:It is [...u]nrealistic to expect me, or any other editor, to do a blame analysis of the page and try to understand your reasoning. You should avoidWP:DRIVEBYs, and if prompted, give reasoning (as you did above, here) instead of tautologically just saying "this user uses AI" or saying "it's clearly AI". Again, when asked by another editor why you marked it as AI content, you simply restated your claim.wound theology◈15:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology For what it is worth, I am very confident that Gnomingstuff was right about this. I never thought about it until they pointed it out but on previous revisions ofesoteric neo-Nazism (now trimmed by me)... namely this[1]. Look at the massive unsourced sections they added that reek of AI, especially the scholarly perspectives section, which does not at all match the books they're supposed to be sourced from. I was able to check the sources and many of them did not at all match the source. Since this was pointed out I have noticed this on many articles.
Many of the books they used as citations did not support the content whatsoever, and the prose does have that AI style where it is full of puffery that a human would not write. I believe it wasreviewed somewhat, which makes it less obvious, and I suspect they did it in a rather peculiar way (I think they may have given the AI a set list of sources do draw from, so there are no AI hallucinated refs) - but clearly not for citation prose integrity. A good tell for this is when they added stuff from AI they never seem to have added page numbers, so they added short cites to sources with pages, but without adding the pages to the ref.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A cup of coffee (or other beverage of your choice!) for all your cleanup work, it's incredibly impressive and tedious work, so much kudos to you.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)07:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnomingstuff: Hello. You have marked the articleWhen the shepherd lost his sheep as possibly AI-generated. For transparency - I wrote original article in Russian, made initial translation into English using LLM and then edited it. No room for AI-associated problems like hallucination, copyright violations etc. I stand by any of the article's statement. All confirmed by original sources. Honestly, I don't beleive that the article should be marked as AI-generated. Thank you.Iurii.s (talk)08:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use AI for generating text, just for translation of the text I have created. The article does not contain any issues associated with AI-generated text. I still believe the article does not deserve the status.Iurii.s (talk)15:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm trying to improve the Collective intelligence article and you tagged it as partly LLM generated. You showed one particular section on CI quotient c with content from a Woolley et al paper. I didn't write that section but I'm trying to figure out what problems you had with it and can't. The diagram appears to be from an older version of the reference paper but is generally the same. I'll be going through all the references to make sure none of them are hallucinated but would appreciate it if you could let me know more specifics so I can address them. Thanks.Chalk giant (talk)14:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
totally get why u reverted, the justification text was def robotic/ai-vibes. but i looked at the actual diffs and the sources seem legit? i spot checked the NYT/Harvard links and they work, not hallucinations.
imo it's a waste to nuke valid refs just bc the comment was weird. maybe we can restore the citations but just scrub/rewrite the text to sound normal?
I made the edit manually. I began by drafting the article in a google doc over several weeks. The week before posting my edit, I began transferring over the material to my sandbox draft of the article, where I included edit history. Last Friday, I updated the article by copying everything in the sandbox over to the wikipedia page, and included a summary of the changes I made. I also updated the title of the page–which I learned today that I should not have done without consulting other Wikipedians first– to better reflect my edits.
In preparing the draft for my article, I used sources I have collected over several years as a graduate student who studies the topic of resistance to DEI in organizations. I also relied on previous summaries that I have written for research projects and presentations, which helped inform the writing in the current article.
Thanks so much. I appreciate your time! Please let me know what other information I can provide on my end. By the way, I am now collaborating with another Wikipedian to update the page, and will be doing so incrementally rather than all-at-once like I did before. My mistake.Benjaminbkeller (talk)17:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you recently added anAI label to a page for which I’m responsible for about 40% of the edits.
I just wanted to confirm that I haven’t used AI to generate any of the content. It was written by myself, though I’ll admit that as I’m not a frequent Wikipedia editor, I may not have fully captured an encyclopedic tone in everything written.Itsdsni (talk)20:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't believe you on this one.
For example, from the edit I mentioned in the edit summary, the following sentenceThis cultural amalgamation played a crucial role in developing Toronto's urban dialect, which is rooted in Toronto's multiculturalism and draws heavy influence from Carribean, East African and Middle Eastern languages is cited toa paper that does not mention Toronto, the Caribbean, East Africa, or the Middle East.Gnomingstuff (talk)06:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not used AI for my edits. Not sure if this helps, but if you look at my edit history, you will see I've made contributions to this page in many seperate increments overtime.
I concede again that I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, and my contributions haven't all been optimal. You are correct, this paper does not directly make any mention of Toronto, the Caribbean, East Afroca, the Middle East, or even MTE for that matter. Instead, it discusses how socioeconomically disadvantaged immigrant groups develop cohesiove "slang" through shared environments and experiences (page 37). In the paper, they focus on American youth, and I had included the citation as the same sociolinguistic theory applies here.
Apologies if this is an incorrect use of a citation, I'm aware citations should be more directly related to the written claim rather than loosley connecting related ideas. More than happy to correct it or replace it with a more relevant source. However, it was not AI.Itsdsni (talk)20:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is one of those cases where the whole thing is dubious, especially since this stuff usually doesn't have citations in the first place. I appreciate the copyediting that's been done though!Gnomingstuff (talk)04:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the Yomut article and for your feedback. I saw your comment about some additions containing “hallucinated sources,” and I would really appreciate clarification.
Could you please point out which specific statements or sources you believe fall into that category?
Just to clarify my edits: everything I added was based on published material. In particular, I relied on:
On the Yamud and Goklen Tribes of Turkomania by C.A. de Bode
Sereje by Soltansha Atanyyazov
Шохрат Кадыров —Туркмен-нама. Кто такие туркмены
The only use of AI was to help improve my English grammar and phrasing, since English is not my first language, and to ensure I wasn’t unintentionally copying text too closely (to avoid plagiarism). The factual content itself comes from the sources above.
I would also like to note that I did not rewrite the entire article. My edits mainly focused on adding information about the Gurgan Yomut and on enhancing or expanding information that was already present. The previous version of the page was largely centred on the Khivan Yomut, so my goal was to balance it by including the Gurgan side as well.
If you can show me which parts seem problematic, I will be more than happy to provide inline citations or fix anything that does not meet Wikipedia’s standards.
I’m the editor working onBulbophyllum medusae (User:Orange Jones) and wanted to follow up briefly on your recent revert of my expansion as “suspected AI edits.”
• Before making any changes, I posted a detailed note on the article talk page explaining the work and inviting review.
• All added content was based on published botanical sources (Seidenfaden, Vermeulen, van der Pijl & Dodson, Tan, POWO, WCVP, GBIF).
• I personally grow this species and care about the accuracy of its page.
• I have now requested review from experienced plant editors via WikiProject Plants.
Although I’m relatively new to contributing here, I’m not new to writing or editorial work — I’ve been a professional writer and editor for over 30 years, and now that I’m retired, I intend to continue contributing to Wikipedia extensively in areas where I have subject knowledge or professional expertise. My goal is to improve articles carefully, transparently, and in full alignment with sourcing and MOS requirements.
For transparency: I did use AI-assisted drafting in the early stages, but all material was rewritten, verified, and sourced by me. No unreviewed or automated text was added to the article. I take full responsibility for the accuracy of the content I propose.
I understand and respect the concern about unreviewed LLM-generated material, and I share the goal of keeping unreliable content out of articles. I plan to continue improving this page and will remain fully transparent on the talk page and in my sandbox as I do so.
One request for the future: when a substantial, sourced edit is paired with a detailed talk-page explanation and linked draft, could the talk page be checked before reverting? In cases like this, it can prevent unnecessary work for everyone and support smoother collaboration.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and for the work you do on content cleanup. ~~~~
Hey, I noticed you were manually tagging a number of pages for U6, including ones that will eventually be tagged bybot. Nothing wrong with that, but given that the bot will get to those pages eventually you might want to save the trouble :)Rusalkii (talk)23:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed and approved on the policy page (as I mention in all edit summaries) -- basically my thinking is to move the most problematic ones to the front of the queue.Gnomingstuff (talk)23:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to that discussion, just out of curiosity? I have no problem with you tagging manually, just wanted to make sure you were aware that the bot existed.Rusalkii (talk)01:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it'sthis discussion:I agree that editors should feel free to U6-tag pages that wouldn't be tagged by the bot, and that limited manual tagging of pages that would be tagged by the bot should be fine.Gnomingstuff (talk)15:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made several changes/updates to theYomut article, including restructuring parts of the tribal divisions section and adding additional references (Mikhailov 1900, Karpov 1925, and others).
When you have time, I’d appreciate it if you could check the changes and let me know if any parts need improvement, restructuring, or removal.
Hello Gnomingstuff! you recently put an AI badge on one of the articles I was editing for school. If you can point me in the direction of what aroused your suspicion of AI I would be glad to fix it if it was part of the edits I or my partner made. I ran the edits I made through an AI detector and it detected no or minimal AI generated content. Thank you!Jeremy Yus (talk)20:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to hear from an AI detector, I want to hear from you (or your partner). Did you (or your partner) use AI for this? This is something that only you know for certain.Gnomingstuff (talk)20:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gnomingstuff! On 8 December, you added the {{AI-generated}} template toMongrel (2024 film) and wrote "edits like this, see WP:AISIGNS" in the edit summary. But I, who mainly authored the article, did not use AI in writing it, especially the diff you cited as an example (Special:Diff/1249016688) was entirely written by me and could not be more human. I reverted your edit and asked whether it was a false positive. (SeeSpecial:Diff/1326584288) Today, you added another template toThe Last Dance (2024 film) and wrote "since v1, see WP:AISIGNS" in the edit summary. This is becoming confusing for me because, again, this article (like all the others I have created) were written by me, not AI. I am unsure what kind of bot or detector you are using to perform these checks and what triggers these false positives. The 5,000-word essay (WP:AISIGNS) you referenced in the edit summary simply discusses common signs of AI writing and does not clarify my concerns. So I decided to start this discussion with you to understand your rationale for adding these maintenance templates and to see what might be causing these false positives. Thanks! —👑PRINCE ofEREBOR📜21:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using a bot and I'm not using a detector, I am using my knowledge of what AI text looks like on Wikipedia based on seeing thousands of instances of it. As I said, pleaseWP:AISIGNS -- if you are not willing to read 5,000 words of text then start with the "Superficial analyses" and "AI vocabulary" sections.
Spot-checkingthis diff I have already found several source-to-text integrity issues, of the exact same kind that seem to crop up over and over and over again in AI text:
highlighting the "Zen state of suffering and sadness" that poignantly captures the despair and exploitation faced by illegal migrant workers -- "Poignantly" is an opinion, not a fact, but is expressed in wikivoice here.The review also does not draw any direct conclusions from the "Zen state of suffering and sadness" quote.
emphasizing that the visuals, editing, and pacing made it challenging for audiences to fully absorb its themes -- Thesource does not say anything like that. The closest it comes is "the compositions, editing rhythms and pacing of “Mongrel” fully encourage absorbing and analyzing as much detail as possible from sometimes very little onscreen movement," which is almost the opposite.
Since I wrote this article over a year ago, I may not recall exactly what I was thinking at the time. But generally speaking, my approach to writing the critical reception is to summarize the entire review rather than simply quoting or paraphrasing a single sentence or paragraph as some editors prefer to do. You may notice that I sometimes include direct quotes, such as in your first and second examples (I was told that quotation marks are not necessary when quoting a single-word adjective from the source), while most of the time, I condense several key points from the review into a long sentence, as you can see how I consistently did this across the articles I have created/mainly contributed to. I previously had a discussion (argument, actually) with another editor about whether this approach should be consideredWP:SYNTH, and I am open to differing opinions on how I handle the film reception sections, but I think this pertains to another aspect of editing and is unrelated to the AI concerns. Regarding your third example, I just reread theIndieWire review you cited and it appears that I misunderstood the original text, so I came up with a summary that completely contradicts its meaning. But like, isn't this more of a way to show that I am not using AI to generate that sentence and that I do make mistakes?? As for Grammarly, no, I do not use it, and since English is my third language, I always make grammatical errors too.
While reviewing your contributions, I noticed that many of the articles you tagged indeed contain poorly written and sourced text that reads like what ChatGPT would generate. But with all due respect, since you are doing this manually based on your experience and expertise with AI writing, I think this suggests that misjudgments are possible, and I guess it has already addressed my doubts. Thanks for your detailed explanation and I really appreciate your efforts in defending Wikipedia from AI/LLM-generated content. Cheers and happy editing!! —👑PRINCE ofEREBOR📜03:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Οἶδα has given you a refreshingMoxie! Moxie is soft drink flavored withgentian root extract created around 1876 as apatent medicine called "Moxie Nerve Food." It is the origin of the word "moxie", a noun meaning energy, determination, and spunk.
Thank you, Gnomingstuff! I've said it before, but this inhuman trash is the greatest scourge ever inflicted upon Wikipedia. Until these LLMs stop suffering from ridiculous hallucinations and complete fabrications of the truth, I see no place for them here. I applaud you for your work in this area. I too know AI when I see it. And I have been confronted on more than one occasion by editors who tell me to not believe my lying eyes.
I just now remedied the content atThe Books of Jacob and swung by your talk page only to come across the nonstop talk page messages gaslighting you here. Apparently the only thing more difficult to admitting to AI usage is to muster up the humility to not double down and passionately attempt to convince others that well, actually, nothing is wrong. That all is well. That obvious AI dreck you just read? It was merely assisted by AI. Scrupulously reviewed and endorsed by yours truly, of course. Yeah...at this point, I believe just about 0% of the people claiming to have done the hard work of translating robot cruft into humanspeak. The rigor required is greater than editors are willing to admit, and often greater than had they not supplanted their own mental faculties to begin with. And honestly, if one's writing style has naturally entered the realm of being indistinguishable from generative AI... there's really no utility in belaboring the distinction on the talk pages of users who work hard to detect and clean it up. Anyway, I just wanted to balance out the exhausting messages here with some encouragement! Cheers and keep fighting the good fight!Οἶδα (talk)07:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that. You have a job to do. But I find AI to be the most detached and dehumanizing incursion into our lives. And I'm frankly having a hard time believing in Wikipedia anymore. That it makes it out of this. That we do. Not going to bite my lip on that. I'll accept that my choice of words is strong. But it is hard when confronted by blatant mistruths. That is, I really cannot assume good faith indefinitely about all this when there isstrong evidence to the contrary. So forgive my weakness. But any incivility is directed at this crude mockery of humanity as it continues to degrade the encylopedia. Not at the humans behind the machine. These are justshadows in the cave, nothing more. And there's no future where we cannot see the light.Οἶδα (talk)23:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasing and wording are important. LLM-generated texts are, by definition, "inhuman", because they are not written by humans. But saying "inhuman trash" can be taken as beingabout the person that added the text to the article, not the text itself.
I don't have much to add here, but I'll say that personally I try to stick to just saying "machine-generated texts", that way it is a factual statement that doesn't include a value judgement. I do understand the frustration though.--Gurkubondinn (talk)08:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editingThe Spirit of the USA. In my 40 years of technical writing, this is a first for me. If I understand the tag correctly, you claim that my 8,000-word silent movie article was AI-generated.
Note: I originally wrote the article in 2019, so it's unclear to me what, if any, AI tools were even available at the time. Also, I spent a couple of months researching this article. Why would I waste my time collecting all this data when an AI could have written the article in a matter of seconds?
Does your software tools detect which AI-generator I am accused of using?
I also believe that all material I lifted from other articles was properly quoted and sourced.
Bottom line - could you point out the specific section(s) in this rather lenghty article that you believe are AI-generated? I will then attempt to "fix" them.As a side note, I purchased Grammarly last year on my granddaughter's recommendation. Could this be the problem? As an 80-year-old man, I must admit I'm not too technically savvy.Thank youMichael Jannetta (talk)07:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you issued this tag, could you please outline the specific steps I must take to have this AI tag removed? I.e., which sections do you believe were created by AI? Since this is a 20-page article, it seems impractical and time-consuming to rewrite it in its entirety. Besides, if I were to replace the prose, I fear it would still read pretty much the same.
When you say, "Grammarly uses AI," are you saying I should stop using Grammarly to correct punctuation and misc grammar errors while developing an article? Does Wikipedia have a policy barring the use of spell checkers? What grammar and spell checkers are writers permitted to use that are not a violation of Wikipedia policy? Of course, as I pointed out, I installed the software a few years ago. I'm not even sure Grammarly was available in 2019.
Apparently, AI is known for generating incorrect information. Are you saying that parts of this article contain information not properly referenced? Since this particular piece took me 1-2 months to research and write, were my 100 references not enough for an article of this size?
Bottom line: When an editor issues a tag of this nature, implying that a writer's 8,000-word article was not original but software-generated, one cannot help but be highly offended and insulted. If you can't or refuse to support your accusations, could we place this article on an open forum and seek other user input regarding the veracity of this article?Michael Jannetta (talk)04:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"which sections do you believe were created by AI?"
As you were the one who put it there, I would like to check with you before removing the template in question. I restored an older version of the "works" section, renamed it to "views" and added a few minor tweaks to phrasing that I believe improve sentence flow.Comrade GC (talk)22:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
who is the AI editor there? i think you can be blunt in stating it on the articles directly as it is most conducive for the original goal of having the template removed again.EnTerbury (talk)23:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps because it is easier tofix the article knowingexactlywhich parts constitute the core issue without having to check every single sentence and every single source, which seems rather disproportionate. if you are afraid that there may have been other LLM editors, you could slap it on every article. if you have reason to suspect it, name it.EnTerbury (talk)07:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are guidelines onTemplate:AI-generated as to how to handle it, as well asWikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup/Guide#Cleaning_up, but the gist is that every AI-generated edit needs to be checked line by line/fact by fact. It's a lot of work, but in the sense that it's work that should have been done before the text was inserted into the article, and in many cases of AI text was not. The edits in this case are byEEJCC (see their talk page, plus some buggy reference cruft left in edits likethis.)Gnomingstuff (talk)04:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gnomingstuff, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk)09:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you because you seem like pretty much the most knowledgeable person on these matters. InDraft:Michele Friend, do you think the|degree=PhD Thesis could be seen as an AI sign in its own right (and could therefore be listed somewhere onWP:AITELLS), or is it something that happens roughly as often with humans who read the template docs but don't use preview?lp0 on fire()21:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm tagging the article in question for G15, so here[1] is the reference in question.
I think that the frequency and similarity of these mistakes, from a single editor,can be a tell. But you have to exercise judgement and take other tells into consideration as well.
Something that I have noticed is that LLM generated drafts tend to be re-"written" semi frequently, where the user is asking the LLM for a new version of the article ("please refine this to.."), and then pasting the new version in place of the older one. That often shows up as edits that touch many areas of the same draft in rapid succession of each other. These invalid parameters can come and go in those types of edits.--Gurkubondinn (talk)08:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You suggested I used AI for my edits of theMarx Brothers article. I spent a fair bit of time researching my changes, and stand by what I added, so I would really rather the notice not be there - at least, not because of anything I wrote. What can I do to convince you that the notice doesn't belong there? Are there specific edits you would like to see?
One thought: I feel like some of the text you consider to be an AI tell might be close to violations ofWP:NPOV (e.g., the changes to the legacy section you pointed out). If I do a pass over the article to remove the POV material, would you be comfortable with my removing the template?Jm307 (talk)10:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I drafted the changes and - for the larger ones - used AI to check my grammar and offer suggestions on how to improve what I had written. I took some of the suggestions, and ignored others. I definitely ignored any suggestions that were factually wrong or otherwise not in keeping with my then-understanding of what makes a good Wikipedia article.
It wasn't too different from using a spelling or grammar checker. The text is mine, other than to the extent that the LLM suggested some word choices and different phrasing.
The results are hallucination-free, although I can see how certain phrases that it suggested and I deliberately incorporated would have triggered your search.
I spent time with a lot of reference material on the Brothers to make the edits I made. I have more edits planned. The template you added suggests to the reader that the information on the page is unreliable, but I made sure that those changes were in keeping with reliable sources.
That said, since I made those edits, I got my first experience ushering an article through the GA process, and recognize text that the LLM suggested that does not belong on Wikipedia. I can make a pass through the article and remove that text, but I want to make sure that that's going to be enough.Jm307 (talk)20:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticedWP:NEWLLM, which says that LLMs should not be used to generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch. To be clear, in this case, I did not generate any of these changes from scratch with an LLM.Jm307 (talk)21:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done a very manual, AI-free audit of the page to remove the offending AI-generated material. I double checked what I added, and everything is factually correct. There remains much material on the page that is not supported by sources, but there is no reason to think it was added by AI.
Yes, I have an objection. The tag is factually accurate. If AI was used in an article, readers deserve to know that. If you don't like readers knowing you used AI, then don't use AI.Gnomingstuff (talk)16:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are getting a lot of very strong pushback, and I don't want to seem disrespectful of what you are trying to do. Keeping wikipedia free of hallucinations is very important. However, there is a clear difference between using AI as a tool to improve the clarity and structure of something that you've already written, and using it to come up with new content.
If the template only said "this may have used AI", I would have less of a concern with your argument, but it also says "It may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. Any such material should be removed, and content with an unencyclopedic tone should be rewritten." I have carefully audited my use of AI to ensure it included none of these things, and rewritten or removed the content that had an unencyclopedic tone. The template leads the reader into thinking that the contents of the article may be inaccurate because of the use of AI. As it is, it is no more inaccurate than it would have been if I had not used AI.Jm307 (talk)23:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put it another way, the template says "It may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. Any such material should be removed, and content with an unencyclopedic tone should be rewritten." I have removed such material and rewritten the content with an unencyclopedic tone. What more is there to do?Jm307 (talk)23:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnomingstuff didn't come up with the template language that so is not something you should bring up with them. Given that you used AI to assist with your edits, I think the application of the tag is quite appropriate. There is overwhelming evidence that most people who use AI to assist with their article-space edits do not sufficiently review the LLM-generated content prior to adding it to the article. My suggestion would be to ask a 3rd party for an independent review of some of your LLM-assisted edits, checking them for issues with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH. If they don't find any, then the tag can be removed and you will have support in future conversations around your LLM use.NicheSports (talk)23:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to have an independent audit. That said, most people will not have access to the sources I used (I have a decent sized library on the topic). While I think my last edit should help it pass the WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH smell tests (and am happy to make further edits to improve that), I don't think the average Wikipedian will be able to check my sources.Jm307 (talk)23:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I typically don't do this but will in this case. As long as you are fine with me doing it next weekend. I may need some help in reviewing sources - I think it can sometimes be appropriate to share them privately (this is done in GA review processes where sources are hard to find). Ok if you ping me at my talk page?NicheSports (talk)00:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind.
I am traveling through Jan 6, so I won't be able to help with sources until then. Most of them are books, and I cited quite a lot of individual pages, so hopefully I won't have to do a bunch of photocopying. I know at least one of the books is available on IA, but I used my copy, which is a different edition, so the pages are off.
One challenge will be that the material I contributed is not up to GA quality (although is closer than what was there), so won't stand up to a GA-quality review. I focused on:
Edits to the lead.
Bulking up the section on their lives through the movieMonkey Business. This is where I added the most new information and references. I did this before going through my first GA review; I learned a lot from that process, and suspect that the material I added won't stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
Trying to turn the Influence section into less of a trivia dumping ground. This is going to be a bit annoying to review, because I continued to use a lot of the uncited information that was already in there without adding citations. If it is wrong, it is not because of AI. That said, I continued to use a lot of the information and citations that were already there, so that might checking the refs easier (if it was there before my changes, it's definitely not something I added with AI).
Organizing the Theater and Filmography sections. I did not use AI for this, so you can skip it if you like.
When a reference was involved, I used AI to suggest better wording and organizational structure, but did not copy / paste what it generated, specifically because the LLM couldn't deal with the ref correctly. (Most of what sounded like AI-generated content was connecting sentences and paragraphs that I have now deleted.)
The pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasandratrony was deleted in bulk byGnomingstuff with the rationale “AI slop.” Regardless of the means of drafting, the removed content consisted of verifiable, factual statements supported by reliable, independent sources that were explicitly cited. Wikipedia policy evaluates contributions based on verifiability, sourcing, and encyclopedic value, not on whether AI tools were used in the writing process. As the material met core content policies, its wholesale removal on the basis cited was not consistent with those standards, and the reverted text should be assessed on its merits rather than on the method of composition.Oroboros74 (talk)16:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've deleted entire sections - facts , statistics, references. You've deleted close to 22k words. That is not positively contributing.
I would like to suggest you go through each paragraph and make edits if you feel, but you should not delete entire sections just becasue they may have been drafted in part using AI. If you actually toook the time you'd see that everything has been cited and referenced, even to the page level.
AI was used to rephrase, but not for the facts. And if you don't trust this, feel free to fact-check each piece of information (I welcome it!) and document WHY/WHAT needs to be edited.Oroboros74 (talk)16:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text was not AI-generated. There are no hallucinated facts. AI was used for an initial revision, and you can look at the revision history of the page and see edits even on a word level.
Please stop deleting 22k words from the wikipedia page I've been actively maintaining over the past weeks.
If you find something that is not fact checked or false, I welcome the edit, but stop this war on this poor African village's wikipedia page.Oroboros74 (talk)16:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you drop the stick, Oroboros74. Take this as a lesson to stop pestering those who disagree with you. Your assertion that you did not use AI is not true by your own admission, take a step back and do better. And I second Gnomingstuff in imploring you to stop whining.Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?)23:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Regardless of the means of drafting" - Actually, how the page was written is important. AI very, very frequently completely makes stuff up. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester)16:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully all the edit notes and talks, and make no mistake. All facts have been sourced and referenced. And yes drafted - which means that the final version was written using human judgement not artificial intelligence.Oroboros74 (talk)16:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Oroboros74 used AI, per the almost mechanical talk page messageshere. I do not mind as certain users may not have a perfect mastery of english, but it appears that is not the case for Oroboros74, who claims to not use AI.Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?)19:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While your contributions towards cleaning up AI-generated content on Wikipedia are appreciated, please be more careful before tagging entire articles as AI-generated. Your flagging ofMean (song),Liyue (Genshin Impact), andSeven (1995 film) are not acceptable and almost come off as personal attacks against the editors involved. Especially Seven and Mean (the latter of which youclaimed was entirely AI-generated butdid not provide suitable evidence for). It's also made worse when you A) don't bring it to the talk page of the responsible editors, and B) don't discuss the matter further on the talk page at all. You drove-by these articles, tagged them as AI using flimsy, broad justifications (mostly based entirely on simple word choice), and then did not discuss the matter any further.Please communicate.
Many times, the articles or edits you clean up as "AI-generated" do, in-fact, seem AI-generated. Your edits are mostly constructive in this regard. But this is not the approach. Please be more careful when tagging entire articles as AI-generated. This could be by either asking the editors involved first if they used AI or not, or pointing out more convincing signs that an article is AI-generated, or just being willing to discuss the matter further on the article talk page itself. Thank you.λNegativeMP119:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...i have been one of the editors onScience and technology in Jamaica - Wikipedia. The drafting/generating of the original content/text is done by human. Is there an issue with using AI simply to help improve the wording and phraseology of the human generated content/text? My edits are properly sourced and referenced (and not hallucinated). Feel free to make any edits or changes you think are needed...or perhaps you could point out the bits you think need changing/removing/or need better references? Many thanks.Koppite1 (talk)00:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As i've had no feedback or response, i'm inclined to remove the AI tag that you put on the article. I'll reiterate that the original content wasn't drafted by AI. Also everything is sourced, with links. Many thanksKoppite1 (talk)10:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gnomingstuff. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 23:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.
I’m a bit concerned that your recent messages at the Brittney Spears talk page and here might fall under inappropriate canvassing as described atWP:CANVASS – in particular, the way specific editors were invited and the framing of the discussion.
Could you please review that guideline and consider using more neutral, broadly targeted notices (for example, at a relevant noticeboard or WikiProject) instead of contacting selected editors in this way? This helps keep discussion balanced and avoids any appearance of vote-stacking.
If you think I’ve misunderstood the situation, I’m happy to discuss it.
This case is particularly troubling since Gnomingstuff actually followed through and wrote on the Brittney Spears talk page that he got pinged to enter that particular discussion at that time.BassiStone (talk)11:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder on my talk page. As a longtime Wikipedian, I'm only trying to help out the best I can.
About that Britney Spears situation, I became very suspicious of the AI/LLM involved and removed all of BassiStone's edits trying to help improve it, but since my edits were reverted, I asked around to see what I can do to resolve the situation. If a disruptive user persists they're not trying to cause any problems, I would try asking somewhere to get another opinion. However, when I brought up the AI/LLM situation, they posted hostile comments on your talk page and on my talk page, so I removed them.
No need to apologize. This may not have been the best thread to be pinged into but I don't think you had any way of knowing that. Likewise with the talk page stuff.Gnomingstuff (talk)00:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HelloGnomingstuff! I understand your good intentions and effort in detecting AI written material in the Wiki. However, due to your edit in theEastern esotericism article, I ask you to take your attention to these pertinent questions before making your judgments: first of all, the public use of LLMs and their popularization only started after November 2022. The article in question was first created in Portuguese in August 2022, and it was later translated in the beginning of 2023 to English by another user. Also, most written text may resemble AI due to a partial use of machine translation by people who don't speak English (which may be involved in translated articles, such as this one); or it may just be a matter of coincidence of mannerisms, since AI replicates (at least partially) real world writing. Also, discuss in the article pages with the community first, otherwise you will be unilaterally tagging and creating controversial and even prejudicial edits. Thank you, best regards!Bafuncius (talk)15:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically linked to the edit in question in the tag:this. This edit was made on 14:10, 23 October2024. For those keeping track at home, 2024 is later than November 2022. Please take the minimal amount of time that it takes to read the template and look at the relevant datestamps before deciding to lecture me on my talk page.Gnomingstuff (talk)19:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is still misleading. It is unproportional for only one edit: it mischaracterizes as if a large part of the article was written by AI (which it wasn't, as I've stated). If the only problem is the lead, you only need to revert to the original one - so I'll be restoring it and removing the tag.Bafuncius (talk)19:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to restore the old lead. I did not revert it to an older version as there were many intervening edits since October 2024. When there are intervening edits, unless they are minor bot tweaks, I err on the side of not overwriting other people's content.
However, in this case, there was no other choice for where to put the tag, as thesection= parameter only applies to specificsections, i.e., subheaders; there is no "Lead" header, it's just the lead. The template merely states "This article may contain text from a large language model." This does not mean THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, any more than "this product may contain nuts" means that the whole product is nuts. Any interpretation otherwise is misreading it.Gnomingstuff (talk)19:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, however imagine that in the article there was only a single AI-written phrase or a shibboleth word created by AI: it would be misleading to feature the tag as a caution notice just because of it, and it would discredit the whole article. So, in lead sections, it is better to just restore or remove the AI content, instead of adding that scary tag.Bafuncius (talk)19:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that; if it's only a minor change I usually just fix or revert it, or alternatively just don't tag if the change is minor/ok (some copyedits fall into this category). I tag it when it's not a minor change or when there have been a lot of other people making changes to the text since then so as to not overwrite their work.Gnomingstuff (talk)23:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering what tool you're using so I could use the same to see what results I get vs the free Al tool I am using. Best regards.Moxy🍁23:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I don't use automated detectors for the most part. I mostly look for the things identified inWP:AISIGNS and cross-reference them by the date of the edit -- there are some things there more characteristic of 2023-2024 LLMs, some things more characteristic of 2024-2025 LLMs, etc.Gnomingstuff (talk)23:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism in Canada ...I did use ai summarizer for the promotional content that was already there (it was tagged for promotional tone)..... with the setting of removing promotional tone. I guess it came out worse than I thought. Have gone through quite a bit.... I'm getting a hit for the summary for the statistics Canada stuff... But that was copied directly from statistics of Canada.Moxy🍁23:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, and thanks for the explanation. LLMs aren't great in general at removing promotional tone even while copyediting since their "neutral setting" seems to be promotional, so a lot of times the edit will essentially be rearranging deckchairs.Gnomingstuff (talk)01:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I'm coming to realize that they simply just don't work the way you think.... No matter how much oversight there is.Moxy🍁01:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you've left the suspected AI edit tag on the articleUniversity of Tokyo, and that one of my edits from a few years ago was pointed out as an example. All of the research used in my edits was done by myself and I did not make any claims that were not mentioned in the cited sources. However, I did use LLMs to make sure my edits were grammatical and sounded natural, as I did not have a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia editing standards at the time and English is not my first language. I've just had a look at what I added back then, and it sure included unnecessary promotional words and expressions that were most likely recommended by LLMs at the time.
I shall work on the article to remove unsuitable wordings as well to add further verifications, so I would appreciate it if you could remove the tag when you think enough clean-up is made.VersedVoyager67 (talk)02:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a good idea to revert to the pre-AI edit version then try to restore some of the intervening major edits? Some, not all, because going through all of them would take far too long.
Hi - apologies, yes, I did mean 2024. (They're the ones with "in collaboration with ChatGPT" in the edit summary.) Up to you whether you want to revert, I usually err on the side of not reverting if there are a lot of intervening edits especially if it is a subject I am less familiar with.)Gnomingstuff (talk)23:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gnomingstuff. I have noticed that you have been tagging articles with AI tags, including the page forBorderline personality disorder. The edit you tagged does not explain, either in the tag or on the talk page, what you believe justifies this tag, other than to link to thw advice pageWP:AISIGNS. I went through each and every reference added appears legitimate. The user in question also has a long and positive contribution history and uses2017 wikitext editor.
Understand, please, that I am also opposed to any AI-generated content on Wikipedia. However, whatever context that was used to justify this appears to be missing and it makes it difficult to follow your reasoning. Ibelieve your intentions are good but I, personally, cannot see what in the edit you linked has raised your ire. Given some of the feedback you have received above in your talk page, I want to suggest very politely that you might be a little heavy-handed with your approach.The Pony Toast🍞 (Talk)03:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As Iexceedingly clearly and unambiguously stated in the template, the edits in question are the ~2024 edits such asthis. As I also stated clearly and unambiguously in the template, they display marked signs of AI use, which I have expanded upon on the talk page, which is a more appropriate place for this discussion to happen than my personal talk page.
The user's edits before this are not relevant here because by definition anyone using AI tools did not use them before those tools existed. Nor is their choice of editor, you can paste AI content into anything.Gnomingstuff (talk)23:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I used AI onTeletriumph. I did between 8 to a dozen articles using AI around that time. On my userpage, I have also recently posted my 2026 Anti-AI Pledge. Please see:User:Guylaen#2026_Anti-AI_Pledge.
But I should also say that "content expansions" should not be a justification. I still write a ton even completely human, as you can see in any of my recent edits. I just think most articles are too small anyways. 6,000 words is astub for some subjects.Guylaen (talk)12:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the note. When I said "content expansion" that was just to identify which edits the tag referred to -- normally I link directly to the diff, but in this case there were a lot of them. It wasn't meant to imply that any article expansion is AI, that would be silly as you noted.Gnomingstuff (talk)00:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to offer you a personal apology. I also apologize for this apology, as it is low quality. Despite me being one of just a fewSignpost editors, I do not stay on top of reader submissions or suggestions, and usually never read them, as I did not read yours. As you noted, there is interpersonal conflict inSignpost editorial spaces about AI/LLM policy. I see that, and I would prefer inSignpost and elsewhere in Wikipedia more civility enforcement. Stricter enforcement could make things better, or it could make things worse, I am not sure, but in any case I understand why you would want your distance.
Even as I am apologizing here, I would also like to ask for a favor for you. Even if writing forSignpost is not a fit for you, I would like for you to have some kind of tolerance for the publication and refer anyone else to submit a story at any time in the coming months and years, if you see the opportunity.The Signpost is far overstretched, and frequently not of the quality that I want it to be, but it is a 20-year old newspaper that is intended to be by and for the people. If for whatever reason it is lost, then I do not think anyone would ever establish another one, and right now I think we are better off keeping it.
Hi! Thanks for your interest in the articleDutch Maid Bakery. I added a section to its talk page to discuss "AI slop" issues, since I think I might have addressed the most of it, but would very much appreciate your input there to further improve the article. --ke4roh (talk)20:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sorry I didn't see that. That seemed not very major/not worthy of putting a whole tag for when I was searching through the page history. I have tried to fix it now, it's not aspeacocky as it was before and hopefully still as useful.Kora ^^ (she/her)say hi!/what I've done01:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded to editors who tirelessly work to keep the robots at bay. Its a thankless job, but know that atleast one person appreciates your efforts. Thank you for all that you do! -Otherwise (Talk?)20:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits toZsadány when you modified the page, you introducedunknown parameters. Just because you specify|some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The|some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is aShow preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check thehistory of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact thehelp desk for assistance.Thank you.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)03:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking into the user you posted about at AINB, came across them while filing about an unrelated Nepal-based sock. Small world. Hope you're doing well, I'll be more active again starting next weekend.NicheSports (talk)19:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, for the articleWilliam W. Destler, can you please expand on your AI generated flag edit[3]. I'm not sure I see the Claude connection with the main page diff link you provided, and an IP editor just removed the flag on Destler's page. Still trying to learn how to detect these things. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk)18:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ageneric name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix |Ask for help)
Regardingthis edit: note by changing the prefix string of characters from* to::, the wikitext parser closes, from right to left, a first-level bulleted list, and then opens, from left to right, two nested unbulleted lists. This causes screen readers to make a list end announcement and two list start announcements, versus just one list start announcement if you had used*:. In accordance withWikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists andHelp:Talk pages § Indentation, could you consider following the guidance to preserve the prefix string of the comment to which you are replying, adding the list character of your choice? (Using: for your response is less likely to result in others resetting the nesting hierarchy in subsequent responses.) Following this guidance would avoid extra pairs of list start/end announcements. You can also seeUser:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup for more details. Thanks for your consideration!isaacl (talk)04:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HelloGnomingstuff, I noted that you put an "AI-generated" template in the articleCaritas Hungary. I have very much written this article myself, and it took quite a bit of research. I believe that everything stated in the article has a source - however it is true that I probably used AI to proofread the grammar and syntax of some parts of the article as English is not my first language. If I didn't do it with AI, then I might have used a translating tool for sentences that I wrote in German. I don't really remember as this was in 2024.
I am wondering what I can do to prove that the article itself is not written by AI and doesn't contain hallucinations or plagiarism? Should I adapt the language? Thanks for keeping the quality of articles high, at least now I know not to use AI for "improving" my language. --Bdx (talk)14:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, as the tag insinuates that the article contains "hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references", none of which is true. I'll rewrite the article. --Bdx (talk)08:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of cleaning up the talk page for WebMD and removed the unrelated threads as per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Please let me know if i made a mistake. Thanks!Jratmain (talk)20:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardingthis edit: could you consider a response that is more encouraging? Although I share your concern that the initial post seemed to describe a tautology (are Wikipedia users volunteers and people?) with specific presumptions, I think your followup doesn't encourage a collaborative answer. I appreciate your time in considering this matter.isaacl (talk)17:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was already blatant strawmanning intended to paint people who are concerned about AI text in a bad light, with zero concrete evidence, so right out of the gate there was not a presumption of collaboration.
It's common practice to have quiet words raising concerns with editors directly on their talk page. Thanks for your time and consideration.isaacl (talk)18:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I have said multiple times, including on my userpage, that if there isany reason you don't have to to ping me -- which also generates an email I have to go delete from my inbox, and yes, I know that I can change settings, I just don't want to -- then don't.
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your efforts to clean up AI slop on Wikipedia. The thread isGnomingstuff and AI cleanup.Gommeh 📖 🎮19:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Britney Spears § Shall we remove the 2019-2021 personal life section?.sjones23 (talk -contributions)19:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits toZsadány when you modified the page, you introducedunknown parameters. Just because you specify