User talk:Gurkubondinn

Archives

2025

"No sources have been removed from the Wikipedia article; in fact, they have been expanded. See you again!" 83.34.33.117 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, and apologies if I reverted too much or too early while you were working on the article, but you may want to use your sanbox for drafting edits (or a User:-space draft page). I see that you've replaced at least one {{Citation needed}} with a source, though you might want to fill it in with {{Cite web}}. Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't remove any text just moved it around a bit (). Yours, 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This looks fine to me now :) Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, the {{infobox musical artist}} no longer uses the "associated acts" field, meaning there's no reason to put anything in it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, somehow I'd completely missed that it says "deprecated" in the "status" column on Template:Infobox_musical_artist/doc#TemplateData and been wondering why it never showed up the pages. Is there a different parameter that I should when when fixing these Infoboxes or should I just remove associated_acts from the infoboxes, even the parameter has a value set? Gurkubondinn (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You can use "current_member_of" or "past_member_of" if the person is or was a member of a notable band, or "spouse" if the person is or was married to another notable act. Another option is to use {{infobox person}} with the "musical artist" sub-fields as needed, as is the case on John Michael Montgomery, which allows the infobox to highlight the multiple notable relatives he has.

Otherwise, "associated_acts" can be removed entirely. It was deprecated because people kept using it for "anyone this musician has ever crossed paths with". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah that explains it, I usually saw pretty far-fetched links there and usually couldn't figure out where else in the article they could possibly be moved to. Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just checking to ask if we are certain it is AI for this diff ? GPTzero output says the output of the user was lightly modified by AI, but wikipedia consensus generally says to use benefit of the doubt with such tools, especially with such high false positive rates?

What i mean to say, would you be willing to revert your collapse if you aren't 100% sure AI was used? I'm personally not sure myself. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: I would say that I'm about as sure as I feel that I can be. There's also a lot of other comments from this user that I'm fairly sure about and I have not collapsed because I'm not sure enough about them. If you look at the comment that I referenced in my edit summary (which was written 6 minutes before the comment that I collapsed). It reads differently (for example with shorter sentences), writes "wikipedia" in lower case and uses a the "normal" style for quotes and apostrophes. Since these comments are written in short succession of each other, I'm assuming that they would have been written on the same device with the same keyboard and keyboard map, and thus should have used the same style of quotes if they had both been written by the user. I think it's impossible to be 100% sure, but I do try to give the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of caution. Like I said, there are a handful of other comments from this user that I suspect are written by an LLM, but I have not collapsed those since I'm not sure enough. Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: that being said, if you disagree with my assessment, I wouldn't protest if you would revert my collapse. I feel that I'm as sure as I can be but if others disagree then I'm fine with that. Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You convinced me you are right. Just checking to make sure is all. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain your rationale behind these warnings? You gave two level 4 warnings (escalating from level 1) for what seems to me like a good faith edit by an IP, and reported them to AIV. I don't see why...? Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a somewhat persistent vandal that has been making anonymous edits to the Doja Cat article from a couple of different addresses. I submitted the ones I've found to WP:AIV (which I would guess is where you found this). The reasons that I personally considered it Vandalism is that quotes used in {{Cite}}s are persistently being changed, even after I had pointed that out in an edit summary and warned the user.

I don't always escalate sequentially through warning levels, sometimes I don't feel that to make sense. But your points about the warning level escalation is duly taken (though I should also admit that I thought that I had used a level 3 warning). Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I thought of this as WP:SNEAKY vandalism, changing quote= parameters on {{Cite}} to something other than what the source actually says. That being said, I also think that I could be wrong here. Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing your username might not mean the cucumber farmer. If you haven't seen this video you might enjoy it. I remember watching Hrafninn flýgur in school in the 80:s, we didn't stop saying tungur knivur and other pseudo-Icelandic for weeks. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It actually does mean "the cucumber farmer", but don't ask me why I picked that name 16 years ago because I can't remember why I thought that sounded so clever. :) Thanks for the link, because I remember something from the 90s about prank calls, people named Storm, and "Hej, är det storm?". I've actually only seen Hrafninn flýgur (sv; is) once (but heard the psuedo-Icelandic jokes many times, even in Icelandic) -- with Sólstafir performing a soundtrack live with the movie in the background. There's one decent recording on YouTube, but the one I was was a year or two before. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Lokah Chapter 1: Chandra (Diff ~1319095278)
Lokah Chapter 1: Chandra (Diff ~1319094609)
Both these edits are uncited and the page is protected to avoid such disruptive editing. Please don't accept such edits. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll say that I was somewhat unsure about both of those edits, but you are right, they are WP:SNEAKY. The second edit fooled me by having changed the footnote in the first edit. This is my bad, and thanks for pointing it out to me. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Benison, someone tried changing this again (different number though) but I rejected the edit: Special:Diff/1319544512. Thanks for the help. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

37.159.122.15 seems to be a sockpuppet as similar Ip addresses have made similar edits that were rejected. The protection is also due to sockpuppetry. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 19:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

LuniZunie: Sure, I agree. This looks like the typical nationalism-adjacent vandalism that I have rejected dozens of times and I rejected an edit from this user earlier that was in the review queue: Diff/1319771188. Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, I haven't accepted any edits from this user? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, that was a typo. Meant so say rejected. Sorry about that. Happy Halloween and happy editing =D – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

LuniZunie: Do you mean in the talk header? Because your comment does say "rejected" already :) But that explains it, I was pretty confused and thought that you were saying that I had missed something. Happy Halloween! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant in the title! – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you please file WP:3RR/revert war in this page? Un fortunately I am traveling and cznnot do this easily myself --Altenmann >talk 03:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Altenmann: I've added a {{uw-ewsoft}} notice to User talk:Jaybirdiee § November 2025 (at first I had posted a {{uw-3rr}} warning, but I feel like the softer notice is more likely to be productive here so I changed my mind).

The editor has also started Talk:Given name § hey so they're showing some willingness to work with others on establishing a consensus, leading me to believe that they aren't intentionally try to escalate into an edit war and that a WP:AN3 report is premature right now. I'll go and revert their most recent re-insertion of their preferred version now and see what comes out of this. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

House of Ascania - Wikipedia ~2025-31986-34 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

There are two types of pide in Turkish cuisine. You obviously have no idea. The one I added is the one similar to pizza because it has toppings. The one you reverted is basically a flat bread. It's super easy to see the difference. Why would you change it? ~2025-32251-22 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you are right. The link text says "Pide" which should link to the Turkish-style İçli pide and not the Syrian and Lebanese-style pita bread. I must have misread the diff, I'll fix it right away. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 20:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Diff/1321302011 --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 20:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for reverting that bit of nonsense over at Curry. The cited source did not include a page number, always a telltale sign of invention: I checked and there is no mention of the claim in the book. It would be best to issue a warning in such cases, given the probable use of AI and the inappropriate language, let alone the perhaps AI-driven mess-up with the source. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap: surprisingly though, that book does seem to exist and the ISBN even seems to be valid. The WP:AISIGNS in the edit was enough to tip me off, I hadn't even looked up the book yet. Thanks for bringing this up though, because I looked through Contributions/IHateMrBall and reverted more vandalism, issued some detailed notices on User talk:IHateMrBall and made an WP:AIV report. The user has now been blocked. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work! Yes, Collingham exists, and is already listed at Curry#Sources, though the editor did not read the article carefully enough to notice! I've used it in several curry-related articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

What is vandalism here? Please explain! Which of the changes is incorrect? Stop accusing me of this or that, and justify yourself! Pluton Real (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You keep adding text that says that something is as of a date in the future. There are more TA talk page notices and explanations about this, but these are the most recent and most elaborate:

• User talk:Pluton Real § November 2025
• User talk:~2025-33823-23 § November 2025

If something is as of some date, that date needs to have passed. If that date has not happened yet, nothing is as of that date.

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

And if the facts or figures are true, despite the future date, can't they be written down on the page? Pluton Real (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

They can't be written in a sentence saying that they are true as of a future date, because that's a false sentence. Either change the copy or stop inserting WP:CRYSTAL predictions about the future. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

DropShot244: you've just reverted me, and you seem to have a fair amount of experience with Tennis-related articles, so I'll take your word for it :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. You were technically correct but typically that section gets updated for the upcoming week (a few days, not weeks, into the future). Alas, I was reverted as well.

Thanks for helping to keep the page accurate! DropShot244 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Here, by arguing with the relevant arguments from Wikipedia's rules, things become clear.

I just ask that this not be defined as "vandalism", because it is not purposeful, and the data I write on the page is absolutely correct! Sanctions for such a thing would be unfair.

After all, we all strive to always keep the site as up-to-date as possible. Pluton Real (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Making your changes the first time is a part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and completely normal on Wikipedia. But when you ignore the third step and repeatedly try to insert your preferred version, then your editing becomes WP:DISRUPTIVE and bordering on an WP:EDITWAR. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you meant in this edit summary? The consensus is to use Kiev in historical contexts. You also altered the quote. Mellk (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice that one of the mentions had been inside of a quotation. Let me fix that first and get back to you about the rest! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Mellk, I've read up some more on WP:KYIV and made some further changes:

• Birth place in the infobox: Changed back to "Kiev", since the Russian Empire article uses that spelling. Though the Kyiv page does not use the "Kiev" spelling in the context of the Russian Empire period:

In the Russian Empire, Kyiv was a
— Kyiv § Cossack period and Russian suzerainty

• Birth place elsewhere: Was already spelled with the "Kiev" spelling, so I left that alone.
• Alma mater in the infobox: Spelled with "Kyiv" in the name, as the Kyiv Conservatory page uses that spelling (emphasis mine):

formerly Kyiv Conservatory,
— Kyiv Conservatory

The Kyiv Conservatory was founded on 3 November 1913 at the Kyiv campus of the Music College of the Russian Musical Society.
— Kyiv Conservatory § History

As for the change in the short description, I based that off a suggestion that I saw on Talk:Vladimir Horowitz § Not Russian:

Groves Dictionary refers to him as American pianist of Ukrainian birth, this could be a good solution
— User:ShelbyNan98

There doesn't seem to be any strong consensus to label him as "Russian" per se. My understanding is that the national identiy of Kyivans, even during the time of the Russian Empire, were as Ukrainians and not as Russians. But I'm not Ukrainian (or Russian) myself, so I may have a flawed understanding. My main intent here was to neutralize any brewing edit warring and move closer to phrasing which there was consensus for. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The article Kyiv probably does not use "Kiev" in earlier periods since this is about the current city (I have not really paid attention to this article because there was a long Kiev/Kyiv war after the main article was moved in 2020).

WP:KYIV says that for unambiguously historical topics (with 1991/1995 as a rule of thumb) this should not be changed. It is also worth mentioning that Horowitz was ethnically Jewish and the ethnic composition at the time was very different. Either way, we typically do not refer to ethnicity since we have MOS:NATIONALITY. I think it is also a good idea to check the talk page archive since nationality has extensively discussed in the past. Mellk (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair point about the subject of the Kyiv article, so I checked the History of Kyiv § Russian Empire, wich also uses the "Kyiv" spelling. But the "Kyiv" spelling is also used in the § Kyivan Rus' section. Either way though, I think that the state of Vladimir Horowitz article should now be up to standards? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if the change to the short description is necessary. The lead currently says Russian and American pianist and this is probably fine since this follows MOS:NATIONALITY and is sourced. I think any change to the status quo should follow a proper discussion with clear consensus to change this. Mellk (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Definitely feel free to revert it, I don't feel very strongly about that at all. It seemed like a bit better phrasing to me, but I'm not entirely convinced about that tbh, and can't think of anything better either. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Came here from the AN/I noticeboard to suggest "Soviet and American pianist" as an alternative as this would be the most accurate because the individual socialist republics (like the Ukrainian SSR and Russian SSR) did not have separate citizenships. No matter from which republic people came they were all citizens of the USSR. So if "nationality" in MOS:NATIONALITY is actually to be understood as a synonym to "citizenship" then "Soviet" is what you are looking for (and I strongly suspect that nationality=citizenship because one cannot change one's nationality but one can change one's citizenship, so citizenship is the only way to explain why he's also said to be an "American" pianist). Nakonana (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone had suggested that on Talk:Vladimir Horowitz two years ago, but someone else very cleverly pointed out that the Soviet Union didn't exist until 19 years after he was born. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

But Horowitz wasn't yet a pianist at the age of 19, or was he? If he wasn't a pianist yet then he was never a "Russian Empire pianist" and always only a "Soviet pianist" (and American pianist). Nakonana (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

His debut was in 1921 and he only spent the years 1922–1925 in the Soviet Union. Although it may still be a good idea to start a talk page discussion where we can review sources. Mellk (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

All of these changes were just reverted by CurryTime7-24, but I'll add the Kyiv Conservatory spelling back as there seems to be some consensus for that. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me in this thread. It would've been a lot more helpful for everyone if this discussion had been held at Talk:Vladimir Horowitz instead of your personal talk, because I'm only finding out about it now. I'm likely not the only person who would've wanted to contribute to this discussion, but was inadvertently excluded. As is it, I don't object if you revert me, but in the future please discuss article changes at their corresponding talk pages, rather than on your personal page. EDIT: I didn't realize you also wanted to change VH's nationality. Per MOS:NATIONALITY, "-born" is discouraged. Moreover, if one wanted to claim VH was an ethnic Ukrainian in the lead/short description, that would also be discouraged per MOS:ETHNICITY. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this discussion ended up being on the completely wrong page. I should sum it up on the the article talk page and leave a (perma)link, but right now it's too late over here. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I only changed the spelling of "Kyiv" in Kyiv Conservatory. For the short summary, see another comment on this thread, it's not something I have any particularly strong feelings about but I've explained the reasoning in another comment here. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If that's all, then I'm fine with that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Mellk: As a janitorial sidenote, would you mind unlinking the section header of your thread here on my talk page? I (personally) dislike having links in the headers on on talk pages, since I tend to accidentally click them, and it's also more difficult to select and copy text. I'd prefer it if you'd instead add it to the body of your comment with {{pagelinks}} or something to that effect. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Mellk (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Mellk: I just noticed that you forgot to place an {{ANI-notice}} on User talk:~2025-36522-73. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I have just realized now that this applies to temporary accounts too. Mellk (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight against vandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, i partially undid this edit of yours https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_law_in_the_United_States_by_state&diff=prev&oldid=1321925975 by changing it back to legal, as in some states, the referendums were attempts to liberalize abortion law Cannolorosa (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gurkubondinn, I hope you're doing well :)

I've made a modification on the REST page. You have canceled this change. I think adding a section on REST API for web services is a good idea. Today, most developers use REST for REST APIs, and most REST APIs use HTTP, i.e., web services.

The text was not generated by LLM. I was inspired by the French version, which I modified a few days ago. I used Deepl translation (not Deepl write) to check my spelling mistakes. I'm French.

As for the reference, it's my website. I teach CCNA. I think the resource on PingMyNetwork perfectly explains what I added to the page; the mapping table between HTTP methods and CRUD comes from there.

Do you want me to make changes to what I added so that it will be accepted?

Thank you in advance for your reply :) Doriiaan (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! Regarding your citation, you should read WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFCITE. You have only made one edit that inserts your link, but it was the first edit made on your account and it could possibly become a WP:REFSPAM issue if you continue. You are right that RESTful APIs commonly do refer to web APIs, but that also means that there are plenty of reliable sources on the internet already that can be used as references.

I would personally encourage you to not rely on machine translation for contributing to Wikipedia. Translating yourself takes longer, but it is important to write your Wikipedia contributions yourself and WP:COMPETENCE is required. You made one single edit and it was immediately clear to me that you had not written it yourself. DeepL uses neural machine translation so while it is not an LLM, both belong to a similar part of machine learning using transformers. A machine translation can be a good starting point, but you need to do additional work on the text afterwards. For spelling errors, you can just use spell checker software, it works really well and Firefox even has it built-in.

I'm probably not the best person to get assistance from with the text that you want to add, but Talk:REST is probably the best place to start if you want to seek input from other editors. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and thank you for reverting my modifications! I did it very badly. I have some reading to do. I'll come back with more knowledge. See you soon! Doriiaan (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Doriiaan: Sounds good! We're all new at first, absolutely no shame in that :) Let me know if you need any help or if you have some questions (not some kind of Wikipedia expert, but I'm happy to help if I can nonetheless). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, you might want to read WP:BOLD as well. Being reverted on Wikipedia happens all the time, and it's not something to take personally (which you obviously didn't), that's just Wikipedia working as expected :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Doriiaan (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

In terms of using Google AI, AI Overview or AI Mode in articles like Spaghetti, while it is too hard in your own typing.

A question About Gurkubondinn (talk | contribs) reverting my edits ~2025-38988-15 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, competency is required and you need to be able to contribute in your own words. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Using Yandex to translate to English using Bing Translate while Gurkubondinn (talk | contribs) reverting my edits and I have a New Talk Page Message ~2025-39226-88 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR to use WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not use AI in any way for my edit and it was removed still. That edit was needed because it was a significant event for the Monsters Inc. franchise LandonG39 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Where did you find the link that you added as a reference in Diff/1326479298? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The first source was from ESPN, and the second was from Yahoo. Literally everything I wrote was factual. I contributed everything, not a single word came from AI. LandonG39 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I know that you cited Yahoo and ESPN, but that is not what I asked you. Where, specifically, did you find the ESPN link? Where did it come from? Did you for example get it by opening espnpressroom.com, finding the article there and then copying the URL? Or did you maybe find it using Google, or in some other way? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I backtracked and found it through Google. LandonG39 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Backtracked from what? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Gurkubondinn, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Game of Loans, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:A3 does not apply to drafts. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that is my bad, sorry about that. I have mainly been tagging draftspace pages for G15, and I glossed over A3 not applying to drafts (but that makes sense to me). I had tagged a previous iteration of this draft for G15 and I just tagged it in again for G15, after I noticed it had appeared as Game of Loans in mainspace. Thanks for letting me know though, even though this was a bit of a blunder on my side. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Gurkubondinn, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Game of Loans, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:G15 applies to the current page. Previous deleted versions of the page are not relevant. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Whpq: hey again. I just meant that note as a shorthand for typing it up again, as this variant has more or less the same problems. But I'll work through it and re-tag it again. The effort that goes into the analysis of LLM-generated articles is unfortunately probably quite a bit higher than the effort that goes into creating them. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The version of the article you tagged has none of the LLM usage signs that would trigger a G15 deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Whpq: hm you are correct, this one does look like it was written by a person. The errors are not the typical LLM style problems, instead it is things like missing spaces after punctuation and grammar issues. You're right, and I'll retract my assessment of this. Looks like things worked as they should, the editor does seem to have stopped using an LLM to generate Wikipedia articles (hooray!) and I shouldn't be so grumpy. Though I won't comment on source-to-text issues, because I don't have the langue skill required to read them. But I have no issues with AGF about them. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your revert. I don’t think it’s necessary to add the AI tag; you don’t usually specify which n search engine you used to find a source. Also, the link is not used in the article; it’s just a link in further reading for readers convenience. Taku (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Please WP:LLMDISCLOSE. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I know that page but this is not a LLM output. I have used it as a search engine. The article isn’t written by a LLM at all. —- Taku (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

And I did not claim otherwise. But you now said that you "used it as a search engine", which means that your edits to the draft incorporates output from a search engine. You should disclose that. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I suppose this is a matter of interpretation of LLM output; a search engine nowadays incorporates LLMs so any use of search engines can become LLM use. Do you really claim that? Note the guideline never mentions the use of search engine requires disclosure. Also, not to mention the link isn’t even used as a source. Anyway, to avoid the debate, I can just remove the link and find the same source using Google. If you insist, I can do that. —- Taku (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the one claiming that LLMs are search engines. They are in fact not search engines, and they routinely hallucinate either non-existing URLs or irrelevant URLs. Of course you can find a correct and relevant URL with an LLM, and of course actual search engines can also return irrelevant URLs (this is even more likely recently in the case of Google).

It has been ~15 years since I my topology class, so I can't concretely assess the relevancy of that Math Overflow link tbh. If you say it's relevant, then I'm happy to AGF here and drop this. But I would encourage you to not use LLMs as search engines whenever possible, and to disclose any LLM use on Wikipedia -- it's something that's probably better to overdo than do too little of. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you can find some pretty good questions about ANR by searching for " neighborhood retract" on Math Overflow (the searches in a specific tag in Stack Exchange), if that helps. Obviously they're still not useful as sources, but suitable for a "Further reading" section like you said. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

And yes, I am claiming that "using an LLM as a search engine" is a subset of "LLM use". I have not said that "all LLM use is inherently bad". LLMs are just tools. They are not as useful as the true believes and the peddlers would have us think, but they are tools nonetheless. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually nowadays I hardly use traditional search engines and usually use LLM as a search engine because as a search engine, it’s actually better. (For example, often it makes things up but sometimes it does find a statement I am looking for in a paper or a textbook.) So if I have to disclose any LLM search engine uses, all of my edits would require such disclosures except for typo fixes and such. I don’t believe that’s the LLM disclosure is about (in fact, the page never mentions search engine uses.) I am fully aware that LLMs make up non-existing sources, so especially if you just asked an LLM to write an article, that’s actually something you shouldn’t even do, disclosing it or not. But my use of LLMs here was exactly the same as the use of a traditional search engine and disclosing that wouldn’t make sense. —- Taku (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

An instance in which the disclosure may be useful would be a first draft written by LLMs or a translation done by it. My experience is that a LLM at least right now can't write a math article (Elon Musk would disagree though); so I don't use LLMs that way. As I understand, the disclosure is about when the article contains LLM outputs, not ay arbitrary use in editorial processes like searching for sources or fixing English (I also use LLMs for the latter). -- Taku (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm just going to stick my nose in here. WP:LLMDISCLOSE is one item in an essay, and is not policy. Draft:Absolute neighborhood retract shows exactly zero signs of AI generated content, and User:TakuyaMurata has indicated that the article was written by him. There's no reason to think other wise. The fact that one element in the further reading section was found using an AI-based search engine is not really relevant because the link itself was not written by AI, and it is quite apparent that the link was evaluated as appopriate before adding it to the section. Common sense would dictate that this sort of usage does not require any sort of disclosure. If everything that was remotely AI-assisted needed to be flagtged, then we just might as well flag every search engine result because they all use some form of AI even if we don't invoke it explicitly. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, and like I said, I'm happy to AGF and drop this. These utm_source=chatgpt.com parameters don't just appear by themselves unless someone has actually used ChatGPT, and I wanted to know where this came from and if there was anything else from ChatGPT in there. Common sense would also dictate that if you know that something came from ChatGPT, it's more likely that something else did as well. I agree with you, there's nothing that indicates that anything in the draft came from an LLM other than that link. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

hello, I wrote the entire thing my myself and added credible sources, what went wrong? Ski Mello (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to provide an attribution to a source for performed exceptionally well, see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV (as well as my edit summary).

This is the sort of phrasing that LLMs love to generate. Did you use an LLM to generate any of your recent edits on Wikipedia? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

No, i wrote it all my myself. Im good at writing and like if you watch football shows and commentators long enough you start to talk like them, they use phrases like this many times. Ski Mello (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That's fair, but you shouldn't write Wikipedia articles like a football commentator :) A different tone, usually it's called WP:WIKIVOICE, is needed here. :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You also added a WP:PRIMARY source, but you should find and use a WP:RELIABLE source, for example some reputable sports news. You can consult the WP:RSP list to check if a source that you've found is considered reliable, but it might not be listed there. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

ah ok got it, but can you revert the changes? I'll change the sources rn within 10 mins for both pages Ski Mello (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to undo my reverts. Reverting someone on Wikipedia is no big deal and a perfectly normal part of the so-called "bold, revert, discuss cycle" (WP:BRD). We're at step 3 now and because we have discussed it, you'll be able to add a better written version of your edit :)

To undo my reverts, just click the "undo" link next to my changes. That will open the editor with my changes undone, and you can make your changes. If you want you can also save it right away and then make your changes in a new edit. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

btw, thanks, you taught me something and cuz of that I can be better. Ski Mello (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Any time, and thank you for approaching this with curiosity! Wikipedia is supposed to be fun and interesting, I'm glad you enjoy it. Feel free to ask me if you need any help with anything else, a pointer in the right direction, or something else. Happy editing! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I just made two minor changes on Dani Olmo, feel free to change or rework them if you don't think they ipmroved the article! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Please check my page on the issues you have put forward and my replies. Yak94 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Since I have not received any communication from your side, I will be reverting your edits and will proceed with further editing the page. Would like to emphasis that no AI tools were used during any of the edits and I have added close to 30 references to the edits I have made. Regarding the change in Diff/1326701828:, I have not changed any fact - have merely corrected the sentence grammatically.

Not keen on an edit war, if there is something - please put it in the talk page.

Yak94 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You know what, that's fair enough and I'm not going to oppose it. I'm not convinced that you used ChatGPT as anything other than a search engine, and I have absolutely no interest in an edit war either. But you did make some changes, you added at least one reference for example, and that's fine. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ahoy. If/when you come across Tamdra's edits at 1346 (hist · log) I wanted you to know I already brought this to Ian (Wiki Ed)'s talk page at User Talk:Ian (Wiki Ed) § Instructor repeatedly adding oaicite refs. NicheSports (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nichesports,

Let me monitor these and remove them from all my submissions.

Thank you,

Drake Tamdra (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't seen those (yet). I reverted some changes made by another student editor yesterday and left an explanation on their talk page:

• User talk:My tongue is sacred i speak upon what i like § December 2025.

Should we bring any WikiEd/student editor related conerns to Ian, or does it depend on which school or educational institution they belong to? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Nah not everything needs to go through Ian or User:Brianda (Wiki Ed), it seems we have a lot of discretion on when to pull them in. I revert student edits directly quite often, although with a higher threshold than for non students, and only go to Ian or Brianda if I'm not sure or there is some complication. Both have been very helpful :) Btw the one thing I don't do with Wiki Ed is G15 articles. Had one declined on somewhat strange grounds (the instructor later G15'd it - it was an obvious case) NicheSports (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, if you see an editor who is using an LLM to generate sources or other content, it is best to report them to WP:ANI rather than revert them over and over again. Thanks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen: so I felt reasonably confident reverting the removals of the {{AI-retrieved source}} tags, as I thought it would fall under a mix of the vandalism and unsourced exceptions of 3RR, but I'll concede that I might be wrong on that part. I really want to AGF as much as possible here, and I have absolutely no interest in edit wars. I was just interested in keeping the maintenance tags that I added in place, not attempting to remove these persons from the list. There been semi-frequent concerns about this editor's sourcing, and I've tried to explain this to the editor and attempted to get them to work to establish consensus on the talk page:

• Talk:Black conservatism in the United States § Sourcing issues
• User talk:NathanBru § December 2025

I did bring this up on the AIC noticeboard to get other folks' opinions as well:

• WP:LLMN § Possible LLM-produced POVPUSHING

After their latest reversal, I wasn't planning on restoring the tags again (because that's very unlikely to be the least bit productive), and instead just read through the sources myself when I have time, and then either remove the persons from the list or tag them as appropriate. But so far I've only read through the reference that was brought up in the LLMN thread, which did not support labelling that person as "a conservative" and he has already been removed from the list at some point anyway. But the whole Black conservatism in the United States article is a mess (with multiple weasel/neutrality tags in the lede) to begin with.

So this is something that I should bring to ANI? Because I honestly wasn't sure if this was a content dispute or an editor conduct thing, and AIV isn't appropriate either since this isn't really vandalism. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen: are you okay with me removing Felix C. Antoine from the list, per my analysis? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I think one should take a WP:TNT to this mess. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yup, agreed! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen: they just added a source that doesn't seem to exist in Diff/1327551235. The original URL returns a 404 and the archived URL doesn't exist in The Wayback Machine either. The archived copy of URL from 2018 redirects to an archived copy of the article on archive.boston.com, but that's not the URL that was cited in the edit. I kind of want to revert this edit since they clearly didn't check what they added, but I'm unsure. How should I handle this? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed it, but again the source says Republican, not conservative. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that too, the same that we'd just talked about. They don't seem to have received that part.

But I'm not sure how I got the archive.org URL for 20250904161900 (archived 404) when the diff has an URL for 20150727020911 (which works). That's weird, because otherwise I would just have set url-status=dead myself. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen: just for future reference; in the future I should bring these sort of things to ANI? Since this one seems to be resolved now, I assume there's no need to bring this one to ANI though. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If you think the user is operating in bad faith, doesn't listen after multiple warnings, or is otherwise ergregously disruptive, then yes. In this case it does seem like the user is acting in good faith, and we have seen the article was certainly not in a good state even before their edits. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You wrote, that the text I added "seemed to be generated using a large language model". What gave you this idea? I can assure you, that I wrote it myself, and it's been sitting in my draft box till today until I finished the references. Please restore my edit, so that I can format the text. ApoieRacional (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

There's a (repeated) ISBN that appears fabricated. The text in numbered lists and wikilinks in subheadings. There is the usual vague phrasing with undue emphasis on importance or symbolism that LLMs constantly seem to produce; f.ex. blends historical institutionalism with discursive analysis, how elite narratives, historical memory, and institutional legacies interact with geopolitical pressures, traces how political discourse shapes identity and policy choices, arguing that state behavior cannot be reduced to power-maximization alone—legitimacy, status, and identity are equally vital, his refusal to treat states as mere billiard balls (some of these are also likely to be WP:CLOP). Then there is also that emoji, the chatbots very often produce responses littered in emojis but a human editor is very unlikely to decide to include an emoji in a Wikipedia edit. I won't comment on source-to-text issues, because this was pretty obvious to me, I did not invest the time to closely vet the (working) sources. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Could you please share with me the "ISBN that appears fabricated"? ApoieRacional (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Where did you get the ISBNs from? Do you not have the books that you are citing? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This is also not the first time that someone has been concerned about LLM use in your edits on the same article before:

• User talk:ApoieRacional § Richard Sakwa

In that thread, you stated that you had used an LLM for your edits (saying I used a reputable AI bot), and were cautioned by Jay8g that LLMs are not suitable for Wikipedia editing. That point still stands. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

could you please provide the ISBN in question? ApoieRacional (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@ApoieRacional Neither the ISBN nor DOI associated with "Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order" seem valid. How did you generate those ISBN and DOI values? NicheSports (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. Please check out this book on google

https://books.google.com/books?id=sj81DwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Russia+Against+the+Rest:+The+Post-Cold+War+Crisis+of+World+Order&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

I also noticed, that I cannot find this book on Amazon. So, I am not sure, what is going on. Maybe you can explain. ApoieRacional (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@ApoieRacional this ISBN and this DOI both seem invalid and were added for the above book at Special:Diff/1327533509. I cannot give you an explanation for this as I did not add them - can you please share how you generated these values? NicheSports (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I checked my EndNote library for Sakwa, and I see that the book "Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order" came from Scopus database with doi=10.1017/9781316675885 and 978-131667588-5 (ISBN); 978-110716060-6 (ISBN). I also have a pdf copy of this book, that you can download from https://disk.yandex.ru/d/Ex4iG_mOvTJsgw . ApoieRacional (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I am definitely not going to click on that link! Very little good comes from a .ru domain and I assume it is not a legal way of accessing this content. I would encourage you to remove that from the comment. As for the Scopus database, do you have a link to the listing? NicheSports (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I can share the book's pdf in another way of your choice. Just tell me how.

Here is the Scopus link:

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85047141393&doi=10.1017%2f9781316675885&partnerID=40&md5=cd6c7dbc1e44198137484ce150c2bd3c ApoieRacional (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't actually need the PDF, we just wanted to know where you found those seemingly invalid ISBN and DOIs. It looks like the DOI did come from the Scopus listing, and the ISBN may have been mistakenly copied from the DOI as it is actually the same value. So I think this clears that up? NicheSports (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that the DOI is correct (it was correct in the other 3-4 ref that it was added in -- but should have used a named ref), but it included a "(p. 21)" string that made the link invalid. But I want to know where the incorrect ISBN came from. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The ISBN is actually the same as the DOI, just with different formatting. It was probably just mistakenly copied from the DOI and formatted using a citation tool. That's plausible enough we have to assume it imo? NicheSports (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The correct ISBNs are:

978-131667588-5 (ISBN);

978-110716060-6 (ISBN) .

It seems that Wiki-reference tool incorrectly used doi for ISBN. ApoieRacional (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

NicheSports: FYI, Yandex is sort like a Russian version of Google, and Yandex Disk is similar to f.ex. Google Drive. But you need a Yandex account to open the linked PDF anyway. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

LordCollaboration: some of the reasoning is laid out here. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we all agree now, that Sakwa's 2017 book "Russia against the rest: The post-cold war crisis of world order" is a valid reference, and that it should be restored?

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Russia_Against_the_Rest/sj81DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=book+%22Russia+Against+the+Rest:+The+Post-Cold+War+Crisis+of+World+Order%22+came+from+Scopus+database+with+doi%3D10.1017/9781316675885+and+978-131667588-5+(ISBN)%3B+978-110716060-6+(ISBN).&pg=PR6&printsec=frontcover ApoieRacional (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly (2026 video game) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03: did you mean to leave this for me? I just draftified that page, but it looks like the editor pasted in some more LLM output to the mainspace page that should be CSD under R2 - I'll fix that. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done in Diff/1327835797. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03: both the draftified copy (G15) and the mainspace redirect (R2) have been deleted now, thanks for the help :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It is not a hoax and is sufficiently sourced. You have no business moving articles to draftspace if you are this reckless about it. Staryu★ 19:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn: If you really thought this was a hoax, then you should not have moved it to draft space. I am very concerned you did not bother to read any of the cited sources in the article. If you had, it would have been clear that this is not a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

whpq: I can assume you that it was an honest mistake. My own personal disbelief that a) this surely couldn't be real and b) if it were then it surely would already have a Wikipedia page were largely at fault here. I searched DuckDuckGo for "Hitler Masturbating" and was confronted with nothing but weird search results, the referenced Haaretz and Guardian (attributed to Russel Brand of all people) articles were paywalled. As a sidenote here, I normally deal with the timarit.is print archive, and am not overly familiar with Newspapers.com, so being confronted with a paywall was not what I expected. So, I draftified it, thinking that if it was a mistake, I would be able to just revert it and admit to making a mistake. Shortly after draftifying it, I found my own sources (and realized that the Salvador Dali page does not have a list of all of his works, there is a separate page: List of works by Salvador Dalí). The leftover redirect from my draftification move was deleted, so I have moved the page back into mainspace now as soon as I noticed that. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you are trying to patrol new pages by sort of winging it. There is a lot that goes into reviewing a new article. Moving it to draft while you figure out if you made a mistake is not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm actually not trying to NPP. I mostly look at a couple of edit filters. I saw this article title by chance somewhere (I think recent changes?). Again, I've explained my faulty reasoning (and why it was faulty). I did not mean that in the general way of "anything can be moved into draftspace and then figured out later", but in the way that "if I make a mistake, I can fix it". I don't go around draftifying mainspace articles on the off chance that they should be draftified, or thinking that "eh it's probably fine" or something. But I can only explain my faulty logic here, I can't successfully argue for it's logic or rigour, because then it wouldn't have been a mistake in the first place. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have in fact just discovered that. Several of the references could be better though, with The Guardian linking to Newspapers.com (which is paywalled, and url-access being unset, similarly for the Haaretz source which a quote is attributed to (I believe those are usually successfully archived by The Wayback Machine). I also made a faulty assumption in thinking "surely this would have an Wikipedia page already" (though I suppose it may have existed and been deleted, I did't check for that). A DuckDuckGo search was not reassuring either, but a search with "Hitler" and "masturbating" is bound to turn up ..weird results. Appending "Salvador Dali" did't help either.

But may I please ask you to not cast aspersions? It was an honest mistake, and you can in fact see my track record of handling my own mistakes here on enwiki. Everybody makes mistakes, me included. I would move it back into mainspace, but I don't have the permissions to delete the redirect. I am going back to figuring out the right way to move it back, now that I have replied to you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll improve the newspapers.com sources and include an archived version of the Haaretz article, fair judgement on those. But I will cast aspersions on your ability to move articles to draftspace just as you had cast an aspersion that an article I wrote of decent quality was a hoax. The first reference is literally the Salvador Dalí Museum. That should have been clear enough. I've also seen your username pop up with other hasty and incorrect edits like this recently. Staryu★ 20:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Normally I prefer to check the secondary sources (if there are any) from f.ex. newspapers that I know to be reliable, before I'd check primary sources such as a gallery or museum website. But yes, it was in fact the first thing that showed me that I had made a mistake. Again, I made a mistake, and I'm sorry about that. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the quality of the article. My mistake was rooted in my reaction to both the premise/subject of the article, and that it didn't already exist on Wikipedia. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Staryu: as a show of good faith, and to hopefully mitigate my mistake somewhat, I've gone through the article and added archive-url to all the sources (except Newspapers.com), and also took the liberty to replace archive.ph with The Internet Archive in the Haaretz reference. I believe that the author of article in The Sunday Telegraph from 1991 is Brian Sewell, but I left it commented out. It's not a typical byline, but he's a British art critic that could plausibly have written for The Sunday Telegraph at that point in time. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Staryu★ 21:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

What aspersions have I cast? Pointing out your mistakes is not casting aspersions. Hoaxes should not be kept on Wikipedia. If you thought it was a hoax, you should have tagged with {{db-hoax}} or nominated for deletion, and not moving it to draft. If you are looking over new articles, you must read references. Even though some are paywalled, if you did read what was there, it was clearly a work by Dali. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

whpq: sorry, that was not meant as a reply to you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Patent nonsense and foreign languages are not the same thing, and are handled differently when encountered at Wikipedia. How to deal with them, depends on whether it is found in an article, or in a Talk page. This message is in response to two recent edits of yours, removing content from an article or another editor's Talk page:

• in this edit you reverted ~2025-39807-97 at Satavahana saying, Rv patent nonsense;
• in this edit you reverted User:Saatibaan at User talk:Saatiban (their Talk page) saying, blank nonsense.

In neither case was nonsense involved; both involved text in Somali.

Actual patent nonsense may be reverted on sight, and also exposes a page to speedy deletion via WP:G1. Foreign languages are not nonsense, even if they are Greek to us; they are handled differently. Foreign-language articles here that also exist on another Wikimedia project should not be deleted; they are described at WP:A2: use template {{Not English}} and list the page at WP:Pages needing translation into English.

Talk page posts in another language are a bit trickier. The Talk page guideline requests that English should normally be used, but I have seen many cases where it wasn't, and usually nothing happens, unless the user has a pattern of doing it consistently in a way that excludes other editors. If you might be interested in the topic being discussed in another language, I would simply start off by asking them to switch to English; and in most cases, that will be sufficient to resolve the matter. Besides being BITEy, removing the edit of another user on their Talk page is an WP:OWNTALK violation, so please don't do that. Also, referring to what is probably someone's native language as "nonsense" in the edit summary is at best inaccurate, and could be seen as offensive or even as a personal attack, so please don't do that, either. Please follow guideline recommendations when dealing with foreign language text in articles, or in Talk pages. One constructive thing you can do is to leave them a bilingual welcome message; see WP:WELCOME-FOREIGN. In this case, I have left a {{welcome-foreign|Somali}} template on their Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those were reverted because of the language, and the "nonsense" wording did not refer to the foreign language contents. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. An excerpt from the first one included this (automatic translation):

Satibaan Mohamed is a Somali personality characterized by deep thought, social analysis, and a broad interest in science, philosophy, and psychology. Below is a high-level, systematically organized profile.

An excerpt from the second one included this:

Satibaan Mohamed Ali Aden was born on . He completed his primary and secondary education in his hometown, where he demonstrated excellent academic performance and dedication. He then moved on to higher education, where he is currently a 2nd year student at Al-Hilal University, focusing on developing his knowledge and social skills.

This user may be a spammer or a COI violator, but neither one of these excerpts is patent nonsense, per WP:PN#What is not patent nonsense. Please be be more welcoming to new users, and more careful about removing their comments going forward. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, wasn't aware that wikijargon was binding per se. That text likely comes from an LLM as well. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It is obviously a lot harder to recognize in text in a language that I don't speak, so I'm not sure. But the paragraph you posted seems to include user communication (IIRC the phrasing that I got back was slightly different). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey Mathglot, just in the interest of better underingstanding your point; should I avoid characterising "nonsensical behaviour" as "being nonsense"? In both of those cases was I using the word "nonsense" to describe behaviour as being "nonsense":

1. Replacing a redirect with foreign-language text, was something I consindered to be "nonsensical behaviour", not because the text was in a foreign language, but because it replaced a redirect with text, which was also foreign. The fact that the text was not in English made it more nonsensical to me. If the text had been in English, then I would probably characterised it as "hijacking", "spam" or something else more specific. If it had not been a normal article page, not a redirect, then I would probably have characterised it as "spam" or just "not English". But those two factors combined were just completely nonsensical to me.
2. For the talk page, that was something that I considered "nonsense use of a talk page" because that was something that should probably have been on a sandbox page or somewhere in their userspace. The language it was written in did not factor in at all, I would have done the same if it had been written in English. If it had not been on a user talk page, I would have left it alone. If I had not seen/reverted the hijacked redirect, I would also have left it alone.

This is something I should probably have thought of, but I know that patent nonsense has a very specific definiton in wikijargon, so I should not have written "patent nonsense" in the edit summary (or "patently nonsical"). I'm not really sure why I wrote it that way to be honest, but I guess that I just didn't put a lot of thought into that, so fair judgement on that.

In general, I try my very best to be welcoming to new users. Fairly often, I'll revert something from a new user whom I can clearly tell genuinely wanted to improve the article, and then go out of my way to help them make their intended edits in the "correct" way. I think it is a better strategy to help them understand what mistakes they made (and more importantly, why that was incorrect) than it is to fix it for them. Because then they can then continue to contribute in the future. Quite often these are edits to pages about subjects that I genuinely have no idea about (quite often these are sports-related pages, and I don't know the first thing about sports). I have a lot of patience with new users, because for the most part they just aren't aware of how Wikipedia works. Including (some forms of) new COI editors. In fact, helping people learn something is something that I immensely enjoy doing.

But I have little patience for spammers, (actual) vandals, and editors thinking that machine-generated text is equivalent to having written it yourself. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

referring to what is probably someone's native language as "nonsense" in the edit summary is at best inaccurate and could be seen as offensive

Fair point with this too. Even though I wasn't saying "this is nonsense because it isn't English", they couldn't possibly have known that. At the time, it didn't occur to me that it could be read as that, even though it seems fairly obvious now thinking about it. It just was not something that occurred to me. English isn't my native language either, and I speak multiple other languages, so this is something that I should have realized.

At no point did I mean to imply that "Somali is nonsense", nor did I have a single thought that even resembles that. It's just language that I don't speak or understand. Unfortunately it just didn't even occur to me that someone would ever imply anything of the sort (but of course there are a lot of people out there would think that). So thank you for pointing out this blindspot to me, it is definitely something that I'll think about in the future. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! You placed a speedy deletion tag on my work without detailed examination. That was a draft, a work in progress. Your claim that the draft was AI generated and it had nonsensical references were without proves. The journal links used for citations were accurate. Please, always ensure a proper examination before making your inputs. Thank you! Joseph4real1995 (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple :contentReference{index=$n} on the page, these only mean that you have copy-pasted output from ChatGPT. That's the reason that I placed the tag on the draft. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This also prompted me to look further and I have found one non-existing DOI so far (doi:10.52291/ijse.2025.40.9 returns a 404). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I've amended the {{db-g15}} tag to include the non-existing DOI. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Joseph4real1995: I'm also curious about the sentence Information regarding Sefotho’s early life has not been widely published in independent secondary sources., can you elaborate on why you included that? Did that come from a chatbot, or did you write it yourself? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and do accept my apologies for wrongly quoting you. I just noticed the AI mixed up with the actual writing and I had deleted them. Thank you very much! Joseph4real1995 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted, no worries :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that you tagged The benefactress for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag from the page because it does not meet the criterion or criteria specified. Please fully read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before tagging pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. G15 criteria are pretty strict: none of the issues you listed are among the valid ones. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey rsjaffe, and fair point on the The benefactress page. It doesn't specifically meet the G15 criteria, in spite of clearly being machine-generated. All of the "references" with the ChatGPT indicators were instead added as WP:ELBODY, and none of the actual references have the specific problems needed to qualify for G15. I think that it's unfortunate that this has to be left in mainspace, but policy is policy. The draftspace page, written by the same editor and declined at AfC, was even marginally better. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Gurkubondinn,

I have now completely rewritten my draft in my sandbox to ensure it is a result of manual synthesis. I have corrected the formatting issues mentioned earlier, including standardizing headings to sentence case and fixing the reference syntax.

I would appreciate it if you could provide some brief feedback on whether the text now meets Wikipedia's standards before I consider moving it to the main article space. You can find the draft here: User:Sascho_Jovanoski_70329/sandbox

Thank you for your guidance.

Best regards, Sascho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sascho Jovanoski 70329 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Sascho Jovanoski 70329: what do you mean by "manual synthesis"? Are you combining material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion? That is WP:SYNTH, which is an WP:OR issue and not allowed.

After skimming your sanbox draft, I can tell you that there are still formatting issues. These are the same kind of formatting errors that the LLM tools routinely make, as they are not suited for writing Wikipedia articles. Most of the sources that you are referencing seem to be WP:PRIMARY, but I have not vetted any of them.

Have you used any LLM tools to write your draft in your sanbox? Is this text, in any part, machine-generated? Are you relying on "advice" from a chatbot to write this, instead of reading the Wikipedia documentation yourself? These tools give band and outright wrong "advice". They routinely and repeatedly make up policies and guidelines. These tools are not sources of information. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)