This user is aware of the designation of the following ascontentious topics: the Balkans or Eastern Europe Heshouldnot be givenalerts for those areas.

An article you recently created,Turkish National Liberation Movement in Bulgaria, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations fromreliable,independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is ofcentral importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft todraftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969^{TT me}11:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, but the quality of sources reflects what is currently on Bulgarian wikipedia. I don't really have time to go further that what they have at the moment. Can you place it under some sort of to-do category for others to take a look at?Pietrus69 (talk)13:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pietrus69. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Turkish National Liberation Movement in Bulgaria, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)12:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good work onRevival Process duplication fixes.Ktkvtsh(talk)18:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Pietrus1 (talk)18:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HelloPietrus1! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Alright to replace date styles in sources?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk)03:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pietrus1, your high frequency lead expansions occasionally show signs of LLM use, such as[1]. Are you using LLMs in your rewrite process?NicheSports (talk)16:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Typically I ask an LLM to clean up my own output to make it flow better/read more generic. Should that not be done?Pietrus1 (talk)16:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you will be pinged by that response as I have been having issues with not being ping myself, so @NicheSports :). I was under the impression that clean-up assisted by LLMs was fine. Of course I am monitoring the output and changing/deleting quite a lot.Pietrus1 (talk)17:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am monitoring the output and changing/deleting quite a lot. I am concerned by this comment given that you have used LLMs to mass create leads, often within 10 minutes of each other. And the example that I provided above looks like raw LLM output. I would recommend to no longer use LLMs to edit here. Experience has shown that it isextremely difficult for even experienced editors to sufficiently review LLM-generated content for it to be policy compliant. See the number of cleanup cases atWP:AINB for a glimpse into the magnitude of the problem.NicheSports (talk)17:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the original output for that lead: "TheList of Indians in Africa is a dynamic list of notable people of Indian origin who have lived in, worked in, or built careers and businesses in countries acrossAfrica. The entries are organized alphabetically and primarily include prominent entrepreneurs, industrialists, and public figures associated with the Indian diaspora on the continent. It is intended as a navigation aid alongside related topics such asIndian diaspora in Africa andIndian diaspora in Southeast Africa."

Here is what I kept of the output: "TheList of Indians in Africa is a dynamic list of notable people of Indian origin who have lived or worked in countries acrossAfrica. Included are prominent figures associated with the Indian diaspora on the continent." You'll notice that I tend to make a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes writing naturally. I also include difficult verbiage at times. My exact prompt has been: "create a one-paragraph lead for this article [and pasting the text plus the blurb I add]." I want to produce prose which is broadly readable.Pietrus1 (talk)17:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In your first response you wroteTypically I ask an LLM to clean up my own output to make it flow better/read more generic but in the message above it seems you are occasionally using LLMs to generate de novo text and then modifying it. Which is not the same thing :(NicheSports (talk)17:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I usually write something then feed that in with the rest of the text already present and ask the LLM to write it then clean it up.Pietrus1 (talk)17:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but in the example above it seems you had the LLM generate the text on its own?NicheSports (talk)17:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The exact text, yes. I am essentially creating a human lead first (usually a couple sentences, but it is also outputting a couple sentences) then feeding in the text with the lead I write. The lead sometimes quite different from what I have created in in language use. It sometimes has added content I have missed as well.Pietrus1 (talk)17:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I understand. In any case it sounds like you are going to stop using LLMs to assist with the leads so I guess it is all good! Thank you again for disclosing the LLM use. Let me know if you have any questions about anything.NicheSports (talk)17:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is upgrading sources and text with low-frequency edits acceptable? Per NEWLLM, I was under the impression that there was no firm LLM policy.Pietrus1 (talk)18:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I covered the current state of policy here[2]. There is currently no rule against using LLMs to assist with generating/refining prose forportions of an article. However, all article prose, no matter how it is created, must be compliant with the core content policies, which areWP:V,WP:SYNTH,WP:NPOV, andWP:OR. I meant what I said above that it isvery difficult even for experienced editors to sufficiently review/modify LLM-generated text for it to be core content policy compliant. There have been multipleautopatrolled editors - and even an admin - to end up atWP:AINB in the last six months due to policy-violating use of LLMs. I can't tell you to not use these tools. However, if you use them incorrectly, editors will likely notice, and you will be asked to stop using them entirely. It is a rather high-stakes way to edit here, and one that probably 60% of the community wishes were completely banned. If you are still comfortable using LLMs to assist with article prose knowing this, then that is your right.NicheSports (talk)18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully hard-rules can be created either way.Pietrus1 (talk)18:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the disclosure. LLM use is highly controversial among the editing community. We are still working to develop rules regarding its use. Some use is outlawed, such as what is covered underWP:NEWLLM. LLM use on talk pages or in project space is highly discouraged perWP:AITALK. If LLMs are used to assist with article prose, the outputs must be carefully reviewed and modified for compliance with all core content policies, especiallyWP:V,WP:SYNTH, andWP:NPOV. It is not possible to do this when making high-frequency edits as you have been doing. So it is very important to stop using them to help rewrite or add article leads. In the past 6 months there have been a dozen or so editors using LLMs to help mass rewrite/add article leads in the way that you have been doing.NicheSports (talk)17:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. A lot of what I have produced hasnot employed LLMs, is that also no appropriate with high frequency?Pietrus1 (talk)17:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is tricky to make frequency edits while remaining compliant with core content policies, but the community will generally be supportive of doing so as long as you avoid any LLM assistance at all.NicheSports (talk)17:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I am going to continue to make frequency edits of the same sort not using LLMs at all unless you tell me not to.Pietrus1 (talk)17:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent edits that are completely unassisted by LLM should be fine. If another editor mentions something then definitely best to consider their feedback of course.NicheSports (talk)17:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you use any LLM assistance for this edit[3] atWP:GAMENTOR? Just an FYI that there are very strong norms (not rules!) that LLMs should not be used to assist with text generation for writing, nominating, or reviewing GA article candidates. There are some ways in which LLM use has some support (machine translation of articles from other wikis is an example), but I would in particular completely avoid it with anything involving the GAR process.NicheSports (talk)17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! I found a Good Article Reviewer using that template for one which was recently on the up-to-B-class assessment page.Pietrus1 (talk)17:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for confirming. Just giving you a heads up about the extra sensitivity in the GA process.NicheSports (talk)17:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @It is a wonderful world, I have modified the template I was using a bit. I found another user using that template and it seems incomplete. Does this version look better? Any suggestions?Pietrus1 (talk)20:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You figured out how to ping me correctly :) yes that template is pretty good. As you keep reviewing and understand the criteria better, you will notice that the best way to go about a review usually isn't to just fill in the checklist, and you'll notice checklists never really cover everything. If you rigourously check everything on that list though, and keep yourself open-minded to learn more, you'll be doing a really good job and better than a lot of reviewers.IAWW (talk)21:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Pietrus1 (talk)21:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review (newer reviewer):

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Previous Reviews/Comments: * Clarity: 1. Potentially confusing parts * 2. If someone has never heard of this thing before, would they understand what it is after reading this article? * 3. Acronyms and technical terms * Conciseness * Spelling and Grammar *	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Previous Reviews/Comments: * Lead: * Layout * Problematic Word Choice: * Special Considerations (for fiction or list): *	Pass

2. Verifiable withno original research, as shown bya source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Links Functioning: * Citation Formatting: * Quote Issues: * Divergence between reference and text: *	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Pass/Fail and Explanation: *	Pass
(c) (original research)	Eyeball test: *	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig Results: * Manual Pass: *	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Pass/Fail and Explanation: *	Pass
(b) (focus/scope)	Pass/Fail and Explanation: *	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Opinions presented as facts: * Facts presented as opinions: * Good/Bad Implications: * Participation in Arguments: * Potentially Contentious Labels: * Fringe Views: * Minor Points Given Undue Weight: * Competing Views Integrated Well: *	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Pass/Fail and Explanation: *	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Pass/Fail and Explanation: *	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Pass/Fail and Explanation: *	Pass

Result	Notes
Pass	Pass/Fail and Explanation: *

Pietrus1 (talk)20:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HelloPietrus1! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Literal title names policy, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk)03:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to theArab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to thepurposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicablepolicies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain fromgaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you maylearn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Rainsage (talk)07:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]