User talk:gurkubondinn

Wait a minute, is that Icelandic..?

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 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)

"Cleaning"

Hi! You mentioned in a discussion a no-Wiki that you do a lot of cleanup after LMM users. If this also include cross wiki spamming of machine translated articles to languages the user has no knowledge og, then m:Spesial:GlobalContributions/MaryTheo2012 is a candidate to follow.

Blocked at no-Wiki, have had content deleted or moved to user pages on several language versions (see also User talk:MaryTheo2012), repeated removal of the template "maskinöversatt" at sv-Wiki (I have now escalated to speedy delete). 11 uploads at Commons, all of them copyvio (of which 7 are already deleted). 1000mm (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Well... yeah, that's ridiculous. I saw the edit warring over the "maskinöversatt" tag on svwiki, and this person doesn't seem to speak a word of Swedish like you pointed out over there. This person doesn't speak a word of Icelandic either, because is:MCND is clearly not made by someone that understands the language, so I'll see about getting that deleted. Thanks for blocking the user on nowiki. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Somewhat related, but svwiki's policy on machine translation is in my opinion much more reasonable than the enwiki WP:LLMT guideline;

Maskinöversättning bör inte användas annat än som hjälpmedel. För att skriva artiklar på svenskspråkiga Wikipedia måste man behärska svenska språket.
— sv:Wikipedia:Raderingsförklaringar § Maskinöversättning

‑‑gurkubondinn 10:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've opened WP:AINB § User:MaryTheo2012. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @1000mm, you may want to be aware of WP:ANI § Pulseoraus AI use and lying about it. The user had created no:Mirud (sanger) which was promptly deleted as "unreviewed machine translation". ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up about that user. I will tell Znuddel (who deleted the Mirud article). 1000mm (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey again @1000mm, I think that Special:CentralAuth/NicaMariaTeodora2012 could be the same user. The account was created the day after you requested the global lock for the MaryTheo2012 account. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I am aware, and I have already requested a sock puppet Cu: m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#NicaMariaTeodora2012@no.project 1000mm (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

LLMPRVOBJ not followed on 2024 European Archery Championships – Men's individual compound

Hi, I noticed you had restored the LLMPROD tag to 2024 European Archery Championships – Men's individual compound (since deleted) after I had previously checked it over. Can you please explain what you mean by "WP:LLMPRVOBJ has not been followed"? and "The Special:Diff/1358414589/1359551650 changes are not sufficient"? I had stated in the edit history that I had "checked, seems fine", and that I can "take responsibility for it". LLMPROVBJ only requires the article be "reworked as needed", which I did. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 11:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Basically, I just didn't considered it to have been reworked "as needed". The LLMPRVOBJ requirements are actually intentionally written to be pretty "high effort", and just saying "I don't see a problem" isn't enough. I think most of the text still remained on the article and you had just changed/removed/added some references? It was still largely the same text that the (now blocked) LLM user had inserted, stubifying it might have been better (but I can't see the article myself either, so I'm just going off memory). I was just going through my notes of the cleanup and discovered that page, I have no strong feelings about this page in particular or anything. But if you want to request a REFUND, then I wouldn't oppose it in any way. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I undeleted the page. I hadn't changed any text because there's almost no text to be reworked. There's only like four sentences in the lead, the rest is just tables. Even if there was additional text, the fact that I have taken responsibility for it means that LLMPROVBJ applies. It shouldn't matter that "it was still largely the same text", as long as the text has been checked. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 11:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, but it does. Just "taking responsibility" for it doesn't really help, because that just means that you are "taking responsibility" for the NOLLM vios. There are no allowances or carveouts for "LLM-generated text that has been checked", so merely checking the text doesn't "fix" the problem. It like how you can't "take responsibility" for BLP vios, or for spam, etc etc. But yes, these sports articles that are 90% tables are not the easiest to deal with, you'd either have to remove the table or carefully check that everything in the table is correct (which not difficult, just super tedious).

They're actually very tedious, because for a minute I thought that there was a source integrity issue. Theyre hard to read, it's easy to misread it as Mike Schloesser having won the tournament and not placed third (like the dsb.de source says). But the leade spells it out correctly, just meant that as an example of how these tables are fiddly and tedious to parse (so I'm not entirely convinced of their usefulness but thats a different question). I would still prefer the LLM-generated text to be rewritten, but you are right that there isn't a whole lot to rewrite and it is mostly just stating things in ways that are difficult to rephrase (so not the biggest issue).

This user has been returning with TAs, and has edited some of the remaining archery articles. It hasn't happened for a few weeks now, but it's something to keep an eye out for on this article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

A listing table like in § Qualification round would probably be more useful than the confusing rounds tables in the § Elimination round sections. But that's coming from someone who knows approximately nothing about archery, so I may be completely wrong. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Also what does 'Bye' in the tables mean? DDG wasn't very helpful, but I guess it is an archery (or sports?) term? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

LLMPRVOBJ states that the editor restoring it "may assume responsibility for the content". I was under the impression that the way you objected to an LLMPROD was to check it, make fixes as necessary, then state that you have done so by taking responsibility for it. You can also state that you take responsibility for an edit that adds a BLP vio, it's just that you'll be warned and probably blocked for it.

I also know next to nothing about archery (I was trying to see how hard it would be to save an article from LLMPROD), so I just compared it to the other archery articles (ie. 2022 European Archery Championships – Men's individual compound) and saw they had the same structure.

Per Merriam 'Bye' just seems to mean that a competitor is able to advance without competing in that round. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

In chess, a "bye" is given either when someone has no opponent (odd number of players) or has requested in advance to skip a round. I assume it's roughly the same in archery. M kuhner (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed edit to User_talk:Gurkubondinn/Header

Hello again! Your currect talk page header has a custom Template:Tmbox with inline styling that breaks on Vector theme's dark mode. The notice box itself reads fine, but its styling triggers an automatic switch to dark text colors, which is then inherited by the nested Template:Archives, making its "Archives" label unreadable (dark on dark background).

From what I gather after reading up on MediaWiki styling, this will require a separate CSS file just for the header if you want to keep that blue background. I couldn't figure out how to create one myself even on my user pages, so I used Stylus to test it instead.

To apply my proposed changes you'd need to:

1. Remove the inline styling from the first Tmbox on User_talk:Gurkubondinn/Header by deleting or commenting out the line with its style parameter
2. Add a Templatestyles local to the Header page (e.g. )
3. Create a CSS content type page under that name with the following code:

.tmbox-notice:first-of-type {
    background-color: #CEF;
    border: 2px solid #CEF;
}

@media screen {
   html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .tmbox-notice:first-of-type {
       background-color: #252A2D;
       border: 2px solid #252A2D;
   }
}

@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
   html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .tmbox-notice:first-of-type {
       background-color: #252A2D;
       border: 2px solid #252A2D;
   }
}

.tmbox-notice:first-of-type #archivebox {
    border: 1px solid #c0c090;
    background-color: #f8eaba;
}

@media screen {
    html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .tmbox-notice:first-of-type #archivebox {
		background-color: #2e2505;
    }
}

@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .tmbox-notice:first-of-type #archivebox {
		background-color: #2e2505;
    }
}

On my laptop, it fixes the issue and leaves the light theme version looking identical to the way it looks right now.

Thanks! — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 05:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This is amazing, thank you! My HTML knowledge dates from the late 90s and CSS is not my forte.. I knew there was something wrong with this CSS and it didn't actually work correctly, so thank you so much for this! I don't use the MediaWiki dark theme, but I use a browser extension called Dark Reader instead because I think that the MediaWiki theme is too black and I don't like the contrast.

Just created the User talk:gurkubondinn/Header/styles.css page, but it seems to be rendering as a normal wikipage. I'll figure out how this works, I think it might need to be in the User: namespace to work.

‑‑gurkubondinn 10:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Request on 09:40:52, 31 July 2026 for assistance on AfC submission by Jon Victor Lara

• Jon Victor Lara (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bernard Bouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I'm facing some difficulties here. As it's current conceived that I'm using AI to write my text, yet is a minor assist by correcting any spelling mistakes and then including references as in previous messages I was told that the information had to be backed with links.

Thank you very much for your help.

Jon Victor Lara (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are you using an AI for that? That's like going to a conveyor-driven tunnel car wash to do your laundry. Why are you not using the spell checker in your browser? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

We can both agree that my clothes would still be clean at the end of the day.

Because my writing is not my forte, would be a good example.

What is it thats bugging the upload? Jon Victor Lara (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that you are using an AI. It is doing more than spellchecking, even if that is not what you meant it to do. Stop using the AI for Wikipedia, and enable the spell checker in your browser instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Electricity Generation Lanka

Hey there. Sorry, I got stuck with some work and the original thread got archived. I have now reversed back to text closer to what was original. Please could you move it back to mainspace? Thanks again for the pointers and patience. Rehman 16:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Diff/1367622893 does not suggest that you have stopped using AI for Wikipedia. What you described there is not allowed by the WP:NOLLM guideline, and I think that you should stop because I am worried that you will get blocked if you continue. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2026

• In the media: Union drive, most prolific editor make headlines
  AI's impact on Wikipedia, World Cup editing, and encyclopedia's place in public life.

• News and notes: Foundation rejects voluntary recognition of union, proposed board eligibility rules sharply restrict candidates
  Further: harassment allegations at Wikimania, and new RfC for Abstract Wikipedia.

• WikiConference: "Kurier, Signpost, wikipress: You can be a Wikimedia journalist" - Wikimania presentation by User:Noé Recap
  A recap of Noé Gasparini's Wikimania 2026 presentation on the variety of wikipress outlets

• In focus: Is Larry Sanger the co-founder of Wikipedia?
  A look over the years.

• Arbitration report: Think, and not just about content
  ArbCom continues business.

• News from Diff: Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026!
  Wikimedians of the Year 2026 announced at Wikimania 2026 - Paris

• On the bright side: The beautiful game
  2026 Men's FIFA World Cup, Wikimania music, and wikipress.

• Traffic report: Odyssey and Oyarzabal
  To take you in the sun to (Ithaca), to show you the World Cup, it's the time of the season for editing!

• Comix: Well-spotted
  You dasherdly—dash–dash−dash-dash!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A misunderstanding

I saw you reverted my edit from Meitei festivals. Let me explain. There's a user named Immanuel who translated simple wiki articles (including vast majority, created by me there) into en wiki platform (Regular English Wikipedia). In the simple wiki platform, those articles (especially Meitei culture related) are created by me even before the public availability of AI/LLM, from a long time. As the concerned user (Immanuel) was alleged for using AI, in certain articles they created here (in en wiki), a user flagged the entire articles they have created in en wiki as "LLM" used, which is not accurate, especially regarding Meitei culture topics, because it's clearly a translation from simple wiki to en wiki (idk about other topics the user had contributed). Recently, I removed the tags, and a user massively reverted my edits (removing tags) in 50+ articles, but after rechecking the simple wiki equivalent articles of each en wiki article concerned, without a single word, the same user had reverted their own 50+ reverts in massive level, though missing some articles, during reverts. And I request you to check the equivalent simple wiki article of the concerned article Meitei festivals as well. It was original wordings of my own contribution in simple wiki, brought here by another user, who got alleged for LLM. Just because the user got indulged in some other activities against the policy, doesn't mean every single contribution should be persecuted. I don't want to revert your edit because I don't want to engage in edit warring. That's why explaining to you in long description. Please have a look! Thanks! Sanguis Nobilissimus 🩸👑 (Tibi loqui licet! 💬 — "Speak!") 18:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for engaging in a discussion about this but there's some misunderstanding here. If you prompt an LLM to "translate" something, that output is also LLM-generated text. Any output from an LLM is LLM-generated, by definition, and calling it a "translation" does not negate that. Another issue is that simplewiki is in English (it is the simple-English Wikipedia) and enwiki is also in English, so there is nothing to actually translate here. I looked at both the enwiki and simplewiki article before reinstating the LLMPROD, and the enwiki article is basically an LLM-generated paraphrasing of the simplewiki article. And this is not someone being persecuted as you put it.

If you want this article to exist on enwiki, you are better off just writing it yourself. I'm pretty sure that you could even coopy-and-paste it directly from simplewiki, as long as you give correct attribution as required by the CC-BY-SA license. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Saw your rewrite, that is a lot better! Thanks for doing this, ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

AI allegation

Hi, in the article about Superyachts, you noted that it had been revised and wrote in its history that the "ai generated text just seems to have been replaced by other ai-generated text". I was me who made the revision, and if you look at the history, you might notice that it took me some time and involved several steps. I will not argue about the text that was there before my revision, but think that I contributed, made some advancements, and added important references. I do not expect gratitude for my work on Wikipedia, and, likewise, I do like to be defamed. Ekem (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused about where this "defamation" would have happened. But regardless of that, ChatGPT was clearly used in some capacity for Diff/1367419315. And same for Diff/1367336009, which also has incorrectly filled citation templates. The statement that "Two-thirds of the emissions by billionaires are caused by their superyachts" is not supported by the source, which says that "The top 20 billionaires ... An astounding two-thirds of these super-rich emissions are created by their superyachts". It is close, but not the same thing. The DW source attributes the ${\frac {2}{3}}$ number to the top 20 billionaires, not all billionaires. This is just what I noticed during a quick spot check, so don't treat it as a full source integrity check.

I don't think that you used ChatGPT to generate the edit wholesale, but I think that you used it to summarize the sources for you (which you shouldn't do). If you read the sources yourself (the paper that you cite has a summary, but you should read the whole paper) and fix the issues, then it should be fine to remove the tag. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

"Two-thirds of these emissions by billionaires are caused by their superyachts" - clearly, this refers to the sentence before which indicated the numbers of billionaires. I see that your reply is full of allegations.Ekem (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I know that, because I can read. But that isn't what the sentence says, it says "by billionaires" not "by these billionaires". The claim as presented is made about all billionaires, not the 20 such billionaires that the DW source attributes the statistic to. Sentences like "reflecting a broader trend of wealth concentration" is also the typical WP:AITREND and WP:SUPERFICIAL analysis that is typical of LLM-produced text (and ChatGPT always seems to be very prone to).

It is pretty hard to deny that ChatGPT was used in some extent in the diffs that I showed you, but you have ignored that and instead aggressively pestered me with the words "defamation" and "allegations". The productive way forward is to come clean about to what extent you used ChatGPT. I would recommend that you take a look at the WP:USED-AI? essay. You may simply be used to an environment where using these tools is not met with criticism, but on the English Wikipedia this is prohibited. It is also not well-received by the community, because these tools have caused a lot of trouble for us. These are not criticisms on you personally, this is entirely about the integrity of the encyclopaedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The sentence "reflecting a broader trend of wealth concentration" was preexisting and may be an AI product. I removed it. The sentence regarding "these emissions by billionaires" has been clarified. Ekem (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence almost certainly originate from a generative algorithm. Sorry that I misread the diff though, and you're right that you didn't add it. Thanks for working on cleaning this up, it is not easy and this stuff can be sneaky and difficult to spot. I think that it is usually easiest to erase everything AI-generated and then work from there. But could you address to what extent you used ChatGPT yourself? ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said at the outset "I was me who made the revision, and if you look at the history, you might notice that it took me some time and involved several steps." I wrote the new text. It is possible that the old text was contaminated. Regarding use of AI - I use it to find references like I use Google.Ekem (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to Review Draft

Hey @Gurkubondinn thanks for reviewing the draft Draft:Ngok Siang, please see the diff with my edit summary. I had reworked the article, based on available sources I could find online and removed any AI hallucinations or AI generated texts accordingly. Thanks, and my apologies. I had submitted it to AfC by mistake before proper edits. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't perform AfC reviews on request. You will just have to resubmit it. I also believe that there is an AINB thread about you, and you should inquire about conditions for you block being lifted and then follow those suggestions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 06:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

could you check some TAs, please?

WP:AINB § Singapore-related football TAs has a list of four: can you give a general idea whether that is four different people or not? Thanks! M kuhner (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The last three are on the same IP, and all four geolocate to the same area. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

All of those TAs actually used the same IPs at one point or another, so they all overlap with each other. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Newslinger found another one, too (no substantial edits though). Ow, those edits are hard to unpick. Time to try out a new undo utility, I guess. M kuhner (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Apology

I revised all the articles about the Chinese car to remove AI-generated content, in order to avoid having all the car-related articles deleted. Krzys123456 (talk) 13:50, 08 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, they don't get deleted by being tagged as {{AI-generated}}, so don't worry about that. You are thinking of either WP:G15 or WP:LLMPROD. This tag is just for reader disclosure (to inform readers) and for maintenance (to let editors know articles need cleanup), they are not in 'danger' of being deleted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Krzys123456: almost all of your recent edit summaries have just been Fixed., this makes it harder to understand your edits and what you are doing. Could you maybe use more descriptive edit summaries? You can take a look at WP:EDITSUMCITE to learn more about how to write edit summaries. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

you mistakenly reversed my edit

Hi,

I'm very new to wiki editing but i created this account a few days ago to make edits to improve pages on Hymenopterans.

My edit on the page Xanthopimpla punctata was incorrectly reversed. You commented on my talk page saying that it was suspected of being generated by AI which surprised me because i have never used an AI chat bot in my life. If you look at my other edits to that page and similar pages as well as checking the sources i provided (sources i found through databases provided by my University) you can see that it was written by a person.

what about the edit flagged it like that? Was it because i reworded the opening section? or did i format my citations incorrectly? Catspritesquared (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it was not a mistake. I can tell that it was most probably generated by a chatbot because of certain elements in the text. I would recommend taking a look at the WP:USED-AI? essay. You should not be reinstating your edits when you are reverted, because that is called WP:EDITWARRING and is not allowed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to get my edits reinstated / resolve this? i just read through the essay you linked and all i can say is that i did not use any ai purposefully or accidentally. i dont have anything like grammarly and i was just writing straight into the wiki page text box.

i am sorry for edit-warring, i didn't know that was a thing. i only reversed the edit because yesterday somebody else reversed one of my edits without giving any reason so i assumed it was more vandalism.

if you can point me towards more essays i can read that are relevant to this situation then i would appreciate them. And like in general if there's any other way i can verify that i typed it myself (like showing you my edit history or something?) then please tell me.

i know the essay says i cant ask about what specific aspect of my edit was flagged for ai, but i will go back to that page to check over how i formatted my citations just in case i messed them up somehow and that was what caused it. i can also provide you with pdfs of all of the journal articles i added, since some of them are only searchable through University access, if that helps? Maybe it was flagged by the citations not being accessible. i'll try to think omore things while i wait for your response. Catspritesquared (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The same way that you resolve any dispute on Wikipedia, by discussing it with other people. The WP:BRD page explains that. I also figured that you weren't aware of edit warring, which is why I didn't report it to the WP:AN3 noticeboard. For future reference; WP:3RR really really is a bright red line, never cross it. Even in the permitted exceptions, there is almost always going to be a better way to handle it.

But I'll tell you that it is not related to your citations. Carefully read over the edit that I reverted (and read the edit summary they I left), and see if you can spot it. Once you spot it (use the WP:PREVIEW), tell me what it is and give me a reason for why it is there. Then we'll take it from there.

I'm not being vague you because trying to me mean or anything, but it's just the only way to WP:AGF and reason about this since I can't look at your computer screen. Since you are from an academic background, it might help to think about it like an oral examination of sorts, but I'm your peer and not an examiner. You can copy the wikitext into your sandbox and play around with it there if you want, might help you to figure it out. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

i read WP:AISIGNS and ive found a few things that could apply?

i wrote 'displays' when describing the colouration instead of using a simpler copula (like is/are) which WP:AIWORDS says is an ai thing. (EDIT: i also used 'additionally' which is the first word listed in the essay's ai language section. dunno how i missed that on my first read through. i used that word because banana bagworms are atypical hosts for most Xanthopimpla species as they usually only target stem borers of various grains. i used that word to separate the banana bagworm from the rest of the host species, since listing it with the others wouldnt make sense)

i also said that they were 'recorded' as targeting banana pests which might count as WP:AIWEASEL although the source is directly next to it so im not sure. i think ill reword that sentence to something like 'they also parasitise banana plants' since now that i think about it that word being there doesnt change the meaning of the sentence at all so it would be more concise if i changed it. maybe im overthinking it

in the section about edit summaries WP:AISUMMARY it mentions that vague allusions are bad. i think in a lot of my edit summaries i just write 'added sources' and 'added links' and 'rephrashed for conciseness' instead of actually writing what the sources were ON (like saying 'added source about X. punctata's relationship with banana plant pests' instead?)

i also noticed when reading it that 'colour' is spelt two different ways but the spelling of it as color is from an older edit and i didnt notice that the page was in american english (im from the UK).

these were all the things i could think of based on that essay. thank you for being patient with me. Catspritesquared (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not that either. But your reasoning and explanations have still convinced me that you are not using AI. It is actually just the formatting, that's why I pointed you to WP:PREVIEW. You italicised text the wrong way, and AI-generated text uses the exact same formatting astonishingly often. That still needs to be fixed, but it is not a big deal in an of itself. But could you tell me why that happened? ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

i'm stuggling to see whats wrong with the italics. i think i typed out the apostrophes manually a couple times because it was faster than using my mouse to highlight the word and using the formatting bar at the top of the text editor. did i use the wrong kind of apostrophe? Catspritesquared (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Nah, it's the asterisks.

But since you mention apostrophes, there are indeed correct and incorrect apostrophes (and quotes). The MOS:' chapter in the manual of style (usually referred to as just 'MOS' or 'the MOS') explains that. Not a big deal to use the wrong one, but also not a bad idea to learn about this from the start either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

ohhhhhhh i see the asterisks in the 'Report of Xanthopimpla punctata (Fabricius) as a pupal parasitoid of banana bagworm, Manatha albipes Moore (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) from South India' source.

i used the automatic citation feature at the top of the edit bar by entering the doi of the article & the automated citation used asterisks for its italics. im guessing the page the article is on probably uses that format for italics and it got copied over when the tool was pulling the title Catspritesquared (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh and since you brought it up, you should make a habit of writing better edit summaries. They had nothing to do with my suspicions, but good edit summaries are are helpful (Wikipedians really like and appreciate good and concise communication). Take a look at WP:EDITSUMCITE on how to write good edit summaries.

Don't worry about AISUMMARY, no real person is likely to write something like that, at least not with any consistence. A lot of this AI stuff comes down to uncanny valley-type stuff (you recognise it when you see it so to speak), and they're just not something a normal person would sit down and write on their own. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

thank you for linking the essay :) Catspritesquared (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding Aile (TV series) revert

Hi Gurkub, I noticed you reverted my recent addition of international broadcasting data on the article Aile (TV series). I compiled highly reliable, official network sources and press releases for these sales. I understand that detailed country tables are discouraged under WP:TVIC, so I would love to integrate this information as a concise prose paragraph in the "Release" section instead. Could you please help me find the best way to include this valuable data without cluttering the page? Thanks! ~2026-44059-79 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason that I reverted your edit is that you had used an AI, which is not allowed by the WP:NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

English is not my first language, so I'm using Google Translate because no one has added this information, which has been available online for 3 years, and it's important

information. I'll try to do it without help. I hope it works and you'll approve. Thank you very much and sorry for the trouble. This is my first time trying to update. ~2026-44059-79 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The difference between AbuseLog/44845948 and AbuseLog/44845993 are not consistent with something that Google Translate would do. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend doing smaller edits btw. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I add the 4 countries that were there at the beginning? ~2026-44059-79 (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have read the sources and they support the claims, then yes. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on "plenty" in latest tag addition

Could you point out the specific sentences currently on the page that you believe are still LLM generated? I would like to address those individually rather than just removing and replacing large portions of the article without knowing what is considered problematic. The article touches on sensitive topics, and I do not want to rewrite other's edits if not necessary. Thank you for your service 🫡 American1254 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @American1254. To remove an {{ai-generated}} tag, all generated text needs to be removed. This can either mean either reverting to a previous version, rewriting the text (without using an AI), or removing it in its entirety. The tag on the Turmus Ayya article links to the Diff/1324357934 edit, which was made by you. You've also made other fairly substantial edits to this article, for example Diff/1318535827 three days earlier. By looking at the diffs and by comparing them with the current revision, it is self-evident that much of the text is still present in the article. Because you are the one why inserted this text, it goes without saying that nobody is better positioned than you to say exactly what text was generated.

You should also be aware that the WP:NOLLM guideline prohibits the use of LLMs on the English Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Gurkubondinn. I have now removed portions of the material originating from the edits identified in the tag and reviewed the other sections I previously added. I also substantially revised the affected sections to address the issues raised, such as broad synthesis, attribution, and wordings.

I have left the {{AI-generated}} tag in place for now rather than removing it myself. If you believe there is still material in the current revision that warrants the tag, could you please point to the specific remaining sentences or passages? That would allow me to address any remaining concerns rather than making further unnecessary changes in a sensitive article.

If there are no specific remaining passages from the flagged edits that you consider problematic, would you object to removal of the tag?

Thanks. American1254 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

No, and I'm unfortunately not sure how I can explain this more clearly. Removing "portions" of the generated text is not sufficient, becuase all of it has to go. The english wikipedia does not accept LLM-generated text, and WP:NOLLM is guideline. If you persist in this, you may be blocked.

And why are you speculating by saying things like "if you believe"? Like I pointed out, nobody is better positioned than you to know this. Because you do know this, like you know for a fact what you pasted from a chatbot. You don't need to speculate. You added this. There is no logical reason for you to be uncertain about this. And I will be honest here, since you have consistently been hedging everything with these qualifiers, I assume that all of it was generated. That's the only logical reason that I can think of for you being this evasive about it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry if I appeared rude. Yes, I did not know LLMs were banned from wiki until that tag appeared. I've been maintaining my village's article for 2 years now and I really enjoyed it. I definitely do not wish to be blocked, and that is why I removed portions of which I think I used LLMS (this was about a year ago in those diffs so I'm doing my best). There was some usage too in the latest commits and I removed that too (those diffs were a month ago so I was able to ID LLM text quick). And by "portions" I mean I completely deleted it, including an entire section I wrote (or an LLM wrote based on the info I gave it).

To be clear again, I'm really sorry if I came off passive aggressive. I understand these are not your guidelines rather wiki's.

Basically, my previous message was just letting you know that I deleted all LLM generated parts that I remember, and ones that I do not remember that sound like an LLM. Then, I wrote the sections myself (granted, they are now much shorter and concise).

After, I came back to the talk page to let you know in hopes of removing the tag in the near future.

All my best, American1254 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

That's fine, mistakes happen. Especially mistakes made in good faith are not a problem, in the sense that you shouldn't get sanctioned over them. The english wikipedia has a myriad af policies, guidelines and conventions. Nobody can be expected to know all of them, especially not as they change over time, and the NOLLM guideline is relatively new. Our guidelines and policies around AI-generated text is actively being worked out and changing, just yesterday a modification to the WP:G15 speedy deletion criteria was passed and implemented.

The problems with the material itself (it being potentially AI-generated) is separate from that though, and AI-generated text is as much AI-generated if its added in bad faith or in good faith. But you as a user and as an editor are fine as long as you are acting in good faith, which I have no doubts about you doing.

One thing that would help here is if you could describe your AI usage? Did you copypaste everything from an AI chatbot for example? Did you write some things yourself? Did you use an AI to "polish" your own text and then paste the "polished" version into Wikipedia? This is a really bad idea btw (but I don't blame you for not knowing, these things are marketed dishonestly), because they will invariably alter the meaning of the text. And "polished" text is not encyclopaedic in nature. Did you use the same AI chatbot for all of your generated wikipedia contributions? If you used the same account, could you look through your history to figure out what was generated?

Another thing that I would personally like to hear from you is what you would do going forward? Do you understand why AI-generated material is not accepted into the english wikipedia? If you've been contributing before the widespread public access to LLMs and chatbots, do you feel like it is a "step backwards" for you to go back to contributing without the use of those tools? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see. That makes sense, because back in 2023, there was no policy against using AI to format your information into "Wiki-format" as I liked to prompt the LLM. After a quick Google search, I see that this policy was added in March of 2026, which explains why this came to me a bit of a surprise. I also didn't know -- unlike laws of countries -- that wiki polices apply retroactively to information added before March of 2026.

However, this was not entirely what I did when I used LLMs with my contributions, as not much info can be found online about my village anyway besides a few news reports. To answer your question one time, I wrote out all the information into the LLM, gave it the news links, asked it to rewrite it in wiki-format (not sure if that's a word). These contributions involved my first hand accounts of events, developments, and social structure backed by the few reports online that I found on the developments. For information I couldn't find online (such as graves dating to the Ottoman Empire), I resorted to taking pictures with my own camera linking to the article. I also did things that didn't involve any AI, such as making the article more colorful beautiful pictures of our village (the only picture before my edits was more than 10 years old).

I acted in good faith, as if you look before my activity, that page was pretty much dead. After I started cleaning it up and updating it more people joined in. When my village was raided and attacked not long ago, anyone who wanted to know what happened (and who we are as people) had nothing but that wiki page to learn from. I fear that the label will turn people away from wanting to know more.

To answer the personal questions, now that I understand this policy, I will refrain from AI text. I studied in the US, so I am well capable of writing myself.

Also, I see why this is important, as it cannot have this derogatory loop of AI Trains on Wiki -> Training degradation messes up information -> AI writes Wiki -> AI Trains on Wiki again. If I were to point to a reason for using an LLM, it was to create a better format for what I write. Wiki was new to me, and I was a little overwhelmed by all the formatting. I didn't want my edits to get reverted or failed syntax breaking the entire article (now that I think of it, it does sound a bit ridiculous).

Thanks for being helpful and patient with my learning process :) American1254 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll write a longer reply tomorrow, but I wanted to address one point right away. Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are retroactive as far as the content itself goes. Our primary goal is always to be an encyclopaedia, and we put our readers first. That's what we are here for, everything else is secondary to building a free encyclopaedia. Policies and guidelines that deal with the contents of the encyclopaedia are not time limited and do not concern themselves with when sometimes was contributed, only what is in the encyclopaedia.

But guidelines and policies are not retroactive when it comes to the behaviour and conduct of our editors. You cannot be sanctioned for breaking a rule before that rule existed. That would be nonsensical, and in that way the policies and guidelines function like the laws of countries (but are not laws).

The WP:NOLLM guideline is kind of both a conduct and content guideline. It is a content guideline because it disallows using AI to generate content, meaning that generated content is not allowed and should be removed when found. Doesn't matter when it was added. But it is also a conduct guideline because using these tools is conduct, especially when people either lie about it or continue doing it after they find out that it is prohibited. People are also exceedingly unlikely to only have used it in one article, so it is goes towards the conduct of how someone is editing.

Since the NOLLM guideline did not exist in 2023, you have not violated any guidelines. The text that you added in 2023, and that remains in the encyclopaedia, is now incompatible with the guideline. That means that it should be removed (or rewritten, because it is not about the substance of the text or what topics the text is about). You didn't do anything wrong when you added it, but today the community has decided that it doesn't want this type of text to be in the project because of how it was produced. The best person to cure the problem in these specific articles is you, and we would be very thankful if you would do that. Perfection is not expected, it never is on Wikipedia, and a good faith best-effort will be taken in good faith. If you miss something and realise this later, you can always mend that later. But you doing your best effort to rectify the text is greatly appreciated and would be taken at face value.

I hope that this makes some sense. Wikipedia is complex project, policies and guidelines are sometimes difficult to understand and even very experienced editors can misunderstand them, make mistakes or simply forget what some guideline says or completely forget that it exists in the first place. Mistakes are allowed here, people are expected and trusted to handle them well when they're pointed out. In short, you haven't done anything wrong, but the community has decided that the generated text that you added a few years ago should be removed. I have no doubt that you are here in good faith, and that you want to contribute constructively to the project. So much so, that I'll resist the impulse to put my foot in my mouth and make some bad joke about the US education system. :) ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I see yeah that makes more sense. It's kind of like a codebase in sense. Really cool stuff; I was inspired to learn a lot more on my own how wiki works. Didn't know that you can download the entire wiki database yourself to keep independent copies. American1254 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Gurkubondinn,

It's been a while, but I've gotten around to removing and rewriting more AI text in the wiki page. I do have a question. At what point do I know if the article is ready to have the maintenance tag removed? Should I use one of those "AI checkers" to catch things I may of missed using the wiki guide alone?

Best, American1254 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

You can just write on the talk page of the article, or ask in the WP:TEAHOUSE or on the WP:HELPDESK. As long as you have removed all of the AI-generated text, you should be fine. I would recommend posting in the Teahouse, there's a lot of friendly and helpful editors there that will help you out. Feel free to link to this conversation to provide context. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion regarding recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

H Turwaq (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion regarding recent edits

Hi Turwaq (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Collapsed in Diff/1369047670 by User:MSK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I noticed that you reverted several of my edits across a few articles. I understand that you may have had concerns about the wording or formatting of some of my earlier edits.

However, some of the reverted edits included historical information that I personally verified against the cited source material, including early 20th-century government records.

Could you please take a look at the specific sources cited before reverting this material? If you feel that particular parts need improvement, I’d appreciate it if you could point them out on the relevant talk page so we can discuss the sources and work on the material collaboratively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turwaq (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you first explain how you made the Diff/1368919730 edit in c. 4 minutes and why you added the article to five red categories? ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Turwaq (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

ok posing larg article withing 4 minute is way too quick, but that doesn't mean the artcile, citations, and the sources are worthless, i have invested time searching history of Hasan Barsame, gathering and finaly use LLM just for help like organizing, and following wikipedia way of posting since english is not my frist language, so please i am asking to review and not wasting all pricelesa articless that i have posted, atleast double check and if you can help cleaning LLM languages please help, i feel bad for errasing history of Hasan Barsane for just using LLM, If I gather someone's real history from relaible source and archives, and ask AI only to organize and correct my English, that doesn't mean the LLM created the history. The citation is what need to verify the information. Turwaq (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that this feels frustrating to you. But this is the english wikipedia, so you must have command of the the english language to contribute here. You should consider contributing to a different Wikipedia in a language that you do speak instead. There is nothing "special" about the english wikipedia, and smaller projects almost certainly need the help more than the english wikipedia does. If you tell me which languages you speak, then I can help you find wikipedia projects that you can contribute to. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I was not expecting this response, you are focusing my english rather than the time and effort i put into researching the subject and finding reliable source, yes english is not my frist language but that does not mean i cannot contribute to english wikipedia as you said "You should consider contributing to a different Wikipedia in a language that you do speak instead. There is nothing "special" about the english.

If my english needs improvement i am happy to work on it

thnks anyway Turwaq (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

If you feel that you have sufficient English skills, then by all means you are welcome to contribute here. But you have to do it without relying on AI tools to help you. The WP:NOLLM guideline prohibits AI-generated text in articles and drafts, and the WP:AITALK parts of the talk page guidelines disallow using it for communication (and WP:LLMCOMM explains why). ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Your comment on removing a tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see my comment in the talk section of the article on Benjamin Creme. I probably should have more precisely stated that the issue was with diction and not “grammar”. (N.B. I can detect: no AI generated content dumped on this page nor “hallucinations”; no copyright violations; nor fictitious references.) There seem to be 2 uncited quotes in the article that personally I believe could be removed, but I have chosen not to do so, not wanting to interfere with others’ written work or research. By listing many faults that do not seem to apply to the article in its present form, however, the tag is unwarranted, misleading and an obstruction to displaying the article’s content in a fair or neutral way. LoveJoinsAllThings (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

G15 usage

G15 can not be used for just any suspcion of AI but only the sign that indicate no human review. I have reviewed Draft:Jewell Farshad and do not believe it falls under G15. It can be deleted under G13 after six months. Techie3 (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty familar with G15, and it does fall under the criteria. There's also defacto support for changing it in an RfC that has pretty overwhelming support and should be closed soon. You shouldn't have removed the CSD notice, the codeblock is still present in the draft. Now it will have to go to MfD instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Communication to the user? What? MD? Anyway its better to be safe by using G13.Techie3 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that falls under the "user communication". I've had hundreds of drafts and articles deleted under G15 for this exact reason, and it will be explicitly added to the G15 criteria once the RfC closes. Because the RfC has overwhelming support, and this is consistently being actioned, there is defacto consensus for this. Now there is an MfD for this page that other editors will have to spend time on, so please avoid creating more timesinks like this. This draft created today, so there is no guarantee that someone won't try to ram it into article space before G13 would kick in, which would waste even more time.

Please don't remove any more CSD tags that I add, I only request G15 for pages that I know fall under the criteria and will be deleted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There was a concensus againt the inclusation of MarkDown in G15 for Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion/Archive_92. Alo the techical is not formally part of the requirement, but I respect that it has a consesus and will not nominate anything. We can shove down draft-article moves any way. Techie3 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

A lot has changed since then. And this is not about markdown in the article, this is user communication. It is a part of the chatbot response to the user. Read the WP:AISIGNS/Wikitext wrapped in Markdown code blocks from chatbots essay that I wrote that explains this. But please don't remove CSD requests that I add to pages. I only request G15 for pages that I know meet the criteria and will be deleted. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I will not attempt it, but I would not think that G13 would not expire before the draft is removed. Techie3 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

"This draft seems created today, so there is no guarantee that someone won't try to ram it into article space before G13 would kick in, which would waste even more time." This is unlikely. Only autoconfirmed user can move pages, and that person is unlikely to be hard to spot. An AI gen page in draft space is unlikely to be moved by any senisible editor. Techie3 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

And yet it happens all the time. Which then turns it into an even bigger timesink. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Skyr cheesecake for you!

Skyr cheesecake

I found it fitting to award my first ever WikiLove to you, Ben, for your considerateness, especially throughout my first successful attempt at an AI cleanup (Leonid Selyakov). Your efforts at AIC inspire me to continue checking edits and reporting users in my free (from study, work, and other editing) time. I hope you like dairy desserts ;) — EmoryNB (they/them) talk contribs 11:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Question Regarding AI Deletions (DddsDD's articles)

Hi again!

I hope all has been well since the last time we interacted. I've gotten back into creating article translations, and there are some of them in progress I wanted to ask about. I just noticed a now closed incident regarding the user DddsDD, in which they were banned for AI-generated content (along with the access date issue you had previously mentioned on my talkpage). As such, the vast majority of their articles were speedily deleted. Just to confirm: the main reason they were deleted was because of the AI concerns, correct? Were there any concerns about notability or anything else? I've developed a concern that if I try to recreate them, they will be deleted again over something that the former creator did.

If you can't answer my question, that's perfectly fine! I was just wondering, given you dealt with the issue. Here is the link to the noticeboard incident I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAI_noticeboard/Archive_9#User:DddsDD

Thanks again for all of your help :) Losipov (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Losipov LLMPROD is for AI use only, yes. msk 16:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

LLM deletions

Hi @Gurkubondinn, I appreciate the efforts to remove LLM content. I don't want that on Wikipedia either. I think there is a mistake for the two articles I created that you requested deletion or moved to draft. I didn't use an LLM for the writing. It took me a decently long time to write those two articles myself, even though they were short. I used LLMs for formatting into proper Wikitext which I have not used before. (I'm not sure if this is allowed, and if not, I won't do it again.) But to be clear: the content of the articles and the citations are human only. Would you consider reversing course on those two pages, or letting me know if there's something else I should do? Thanks. January2May (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Using LLMs in any part for page creation isn't allowed, per the rules posted on your talkpage by @Gurkubondinn. They made the right decision moving these to draftspace so that way AfC reviewers may be allowed to evaluate what if any impact the LLM had. Although your willingness to contribute is super appreciated, I would advise continuing to create your articles through the AfC process until you have a better understanding of our policies. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Got it! I will follow your advice. January2May (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of AI-generated tag

Hello @Gurkubondinn, I am taking responsibility for the Gurpartap Singh article and have reviewed, cleaned up and improved the content. I do not believe the current version contains AI-generated content. I respectfully request that the AI-generated tag on the article be removed. If there are any specific passages that still raise concerns, please point them out and I will be happy to address them. Thank you in advance. LegacyWiki (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss it in the WP:AIN § User:LegacyWiki thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy notification of discussion at WP:SPI

There is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Vladraresfilip that may involve you as the initial investigator of User:Vladraresfilip at WP:AIN. Thank you. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 22:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, appreciated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ethical use of LLM's

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You reverted a grammatical edit on the article Internet Security Awareness Training, can I explain why I think you should reconsider. I understand that AI hallucinates and can never be 100% trusted due to the fact it guesses everything and it's not that hard to poison. But it can be proofread by a human for correctness and as long as that human is knowledgeable in the subject that should be ok. Wikipedia says that you can use LLM for spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar and similarly simple corrections which was exactly what I used if for a grammatical pass. I get that LLM's should not be used to mass generate articles and spam everything but those of us with learning difficulties should be able to use it to assist us. Sorry if you run out of breath reading that, I am not great a grammar. TheCyberRebel (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither Diff/1370662406 nor Diff/1370662783 fall under the very narrow exception to WP:NOLLM that allows the use of LLMs to to suggest corrections and is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. So no, I am not going to reconsider that revert. Please stop using LLMs on Wikipedia, and just enable the spell checker in your browser instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

That would be Grammarly as that's by far the largest spell checker for most browsers. Grammarly makes over a billion LLM calls every single day. Please could you stop advertising the use of LLMs on Wikipedia, they are not allowed. Thanks. TheCyberRebel (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

That is correct, Grammarly is not allowed and is even specifically mentioned in NOLLM. I am talking about the spell checker in your browser, and Grammarly not a spell checker even though it may have a browser add-on. The spell checker is built into your browser, and it is not an LLM. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Both Safari and Chrome use LLMs for their spell check and have done for years. Again Please could you stop advertising the use of LLMs on Wikipedia, they are not allowed. That's 2 strikes. TheCyberRebel (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You seem to be thinking of something called an Enhanced mode, that sounds like it might use an LLM ("sends the text you enter in your browser to Google for improved spelling suggestions"). But it is far from clear. Anyway, I have replied to your question and I will close this thread now, because this is weirdly antagonistic. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August2026

Thank you for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Please accept this flower as a small token of appreciation for your work. 🌹 Lalook (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate this note. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

How can I add Real Madrid fandom to my page? Like you wrote Chelsea.Lalook (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

See your user page

you add it, i want to do it too

Personalize my user page Lalook (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say "Chelsea" anywhere on my userpage. But your userpage is the same as any other page, just create the User:Lalook page and start editing the page. Just make sure to familiarise yourself with the WP:UP guidelines. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry its was mistake I thought you did. but see this, i mean this one:

This user supports Chelsea F.C.

Lalook (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I've created your userpage for you, with the Chelsea userbox: Diff/1370909241. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks bro

I wanted to add the Real Madrid fan, I just gave him as an example, HaHa, I'm bothering you. Sorry Lalook (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Just edit the page with any userbox that you want. No clue where the Real Madrid box is though, but just replace the Chelsea box with that one when you find it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks, i hope find it Lalook (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If you saw it on someone's userpage, then just click the 'Edit' button and copy the wikitext for it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 August 2026

• News and notes: Union process progresses, unanswered questions about Littler Mendelson remain
  And Raju Narisetti leaves WMF board after nine years.

• In the media: Wikipedia editors save Sam Altman's life
  Can AI do that? Meanwhile, Ruwiki gives porn the shaft, and has Grokipedia ghosted?

• Recent research: Women in blue? Wikipedia's gender gap reverses in some areas
  And other new research findings.

• Discussion report: Again and Again
  The community comes to consensus.

• Traffic report: Look out, here comes the Spider-Man!
  Plus The Odyssey and varied topics caught in his web.

• Humour: Her tastes, her Wikimania, her upcoming tour... Baby Globe reveals everything
  A short (parody) interview with Baby Globe via the French wikipress outlet, Regards sur l’Actualité du mouvement Wikimédia (RAW).

• On the bright side: The great outdoors
  Blue Angels, Indigenous Peoples' Day, and the Perseids meteor shower.

• Opinion: Are we embarrassed yet?
  One editor wants to find out more about a Department of Justice investigation of Wikipedia and its editors.

• Special report: Paris Syndrome: Labor Strife, AI Anxiety, and a Leadership Test at Wikimania 2026
  Notes from a delightful Wikimania and the ugly week that followed.

• Comix: WP:FAOWN
  "Explaining civilly" probably should go both ways...

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Edits to Obi Egbuna page

Hi! I have started to update the bio of Obi Egbuna, the Nigerian Author, as I have been researching him for my step sister- his grandaughter, via the Schomburg archives in NYC. I received an alert relating to some basic updates that a LLM had been used? This is not the case, and I simply reformulated, and cited, content from another source. It is important to know, for example, that Egbuna was given a suspended sentence, as the current article just says he was "imprisoned". Please advise on how my own words were flagged as AI? Thanks! Mark92T (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It was not a big edit, but it was still identifiable as being AI-generated. And that means that you have a WP:COI, which you are required to disclose. Please don't use AI on the English Wikipedia, this is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It was not AI generated, to be very clear, but I did use Grammarly which may itself use AI? In any case thank you for the information on COI as this makes perfect sense. I will submit any edits as requests to this page using edit COI instead for peer review if that is the best route? Mark92T (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Grammarly is an AI and it is specifically mentioned in the WP:NOLLM guideline. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2026 Backlog drive

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sandbox Article Reviewing Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

Regarding the non-neutralism, is the article neutral, and if not, where is the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamim02004/sandbox#A_Common_Historical_Misattribution_%26_the_Early_Islamic_Heritage

Thank you. Tamim02004 (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop using AI on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is not the place to present opinions or to draw conclusions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a prejugment, since I did not use AI not draw conclusions. And this is an offence that I do not accept. Can you please give me the sentence that you found more likely to be an AI. Tamim02004 (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a prejugment, since I did not use AI to draw conclusions. And this is an offence that I do not accept. Can you please give me the sentence that you found more likely to be an AI. Tamim02004 (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You used AI to generate your edits and that sandbox page. I do not perform ad-hoc reviews on request. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

so how can I know that's my article is ready for online publication if nobody confirms that it sticks to your guidelines? And why the block for him if he has no way to check if his article is approved to the mentor, and where he has to improve? Like in my example, I don't know what you saw as an AI, and what you see as neuralism, so I don't know where to start editing, and what's the problem specifically in my article, so how then I be held accountable while I don't know? Tamim02004 (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have provided my article with references, so it is facts, not opinions. And it is the convey of the controversy about the matter, not opinions. Plus, the old edit that you approved before mine was not neutral, since he draw a conclusion that the reports in the matter are weak, and that the hanbalies who accused the figure were extremists, and that's inconsistency. Tamim02004 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JMWT’s talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey @Gurkubondinn, I hope you saw what I wrote on JMWt’s talk page and can respond shortly. Thank you. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But I do not intend to reply. The last thing that would encourage JMWt to come back is a litany of talk page messages about this. The only reason that I left my message was because I was restoring a message on someone else's talk page, and I wanted them to know that they have my permission to remove my message. I did not expect you to respond (and I don't think that you should have). This isn't about you, JMWt is clearly not interested in your apology so you should stop trying to force it. You shouldn't have filed that ANI thread in the first place, but I hope that you have learned something from it. It can be incredibly exhausting when editors want to force their articles and edits through no matter what. This might sound harsh, but I don't want to try to talk around it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You’re absolutely right. I’m terribly sorry. I should quit. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I said. You should just learn from this, and try to not press further. Keep in mind that writing on their talk page may trigger email notifications. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said I should quit it already. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You free to give me a second opinion here?

Hey, if you've got a free moment, could you take a look at Pu xie qi yao and the editor who created the page and tell me what you think? I'm considering taking this to the noticeboard, but I'm doubting myself, so I'd be interested to hear what you think before I present it to the masses. – Ike Lek (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Just looking at that article alone, there are a few things that make me vaguely sceptical. In the first revision of the article;

• Reference nr. 2 has an archive-url, but url-status is not set to live despite the url being live. It is the only online source with an archive-url, so clearly it was not added because of a general concern for careful sourcing because then reference nr. 4 would also have an archive-url parameter. Reference nr. 1 is to Wikisource, so that could be argued to not need an archived url because it's a MediaWiki project, but I would still have added one myself.
• Reference nr. 3 cites a book, page numbers are given inline and the ISBN shows up in WorldCat but it is not found in KIT. The publisher give in the article also doesn't match the WorldCat listing, so it might be the publisher of a translation. But if you have the book yourself (which you need to if you are going to cite it), then the ISBN and publisher should match (you wouldn't cite a translation and use the ISBN for the original because you would be looking at the translated book).
• Reference nr. 5 also cites a book. Gives pages numbers, but lists a rather wide range and the only time it is cited, a narrower page range is given inline. The ISBN is not listed in the reference, despite the edition notice of the book being present in the scan on archive.org that the reference links to. The scan doesn't show pages 38–39 that are cited in the article (it's a limited preview, because of the legal case against archive.org) so we can't easily verify that the reference supports the claim in the article (so no comment on that).
• The tone feels a bit off, but that is just a gut feeling. The way that it is describing sources is not quite WP:AIATTR but similar. There's nothing in the text itself that really stands out to me, but there are others that are much better at identifying that sort of thing than I am.

But if we look at the user and editing patterns;

• The Pu xie qi yao was created less than two minutes after the Diff/1371235772 edit, and there were several other larger edits like Diff/1371231907 made in the hour before it. It seems unlikely to me that these could have been "prepared offline" and then pasted into Wikipedia later, because there's a pattern of editing the same articles more than once within a short timeframe.
• I don't quite know what to make of this (other than the edit is likely made by a Russian or at least Russian-speaking), but AbuseLog/44810861 has utm_source=yandexsmartcamera. And AbuseLog/44866784 shows a link coming from WhatsApp?
• Seems to have reworked Draft:Phaya Khottabong that was draftified in another AIN case (by Athanelar).
• There are lots of 'Disambiguation link notification' messages on their user talk page.

Haven't found anything that makes me certain (one way or another), but what does stand out to me is the rapid editing pattern when this article was created. These may be unattributed machine translations. I would suggest to just bring this up on the WP:AIN noticeboard and get some more eyes on it. There are people there that are much better at me at the lexical analysis and recognising the signs of an AI-generated text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoroughness. I was not expecting anything on this level, and was just looking for advice on whether to bring this to the WP:AIN, which I will absolutely do. Once I have made a post, I'll link to it here. It would be a waste not to reiterate what you have said here there, so I hope you will. Ike Lek (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ike Lek Since I was tagged here I might as well also weigh in. The text reads to me like it could be plausibly AI generated, at least partially; two things stand out particularly; The reign is not dated directly in any source and is placed by inference between two fixed points. is similar to the kinds of disclaimers that AI gives when asked to provide information for which it can find no sources; cf the example given at that link detailed lyrics are not widely transcribed on major sites like Genius or AZLyrics... I've inferred common motifs from similar trap tracks and Honcho's style

and Tatsuo Hoshino reads the change of name in the Chinese records as reflecting the southward extension of Si Thep's authority over the Nakhon Pathom region is pretty textbook for WP:AITREND (it particularly loves to needlessly extrapolate the significance of etymologies and name changes)

There are certain contraindications that could suggest the text is human written, or at least has been modified by a human, but I would not be surprised if there's AI involved here. I'd give it a ~65% certainty. Athanelar (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Athanelar. The first example (is not dated directly in any source) did stand out to me, it's what I had in mind when I said that it was similar to AIATTR. Good catch on the AITREND sentence though, I'd missed that one. Together with the rapid editing patterns, I'm leaning more towards this probably being generated or AI at least being involved somewhere. I'd say that ~65% is somewhere around where I stand as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Recent article reverts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Gurkubondinn. I noticed that you have reverted several of my recent edits across a few articles. I appreciate you reviewing my work. Where you believe that an article still has problems, could you please explain the specific concerns on the respective article's talk page? That would help me understand what needs to be corrected and allow us to work through each article individually. I am very happy to discuss the edits and improve or rewrite anything that needs further work. Thank you. TudorTulok (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to have been using AI to generate your edits and articles. As I have already explained to you, this is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline and wastes the time of volunteer editors that have to clean up after you. Please stop using AI on Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:35, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand your concern regarding WP:NOLLM. My question here is specifically about the reverted edits. Could you please indicate which parts of those edits were problematic, particularly where there were issues with the sources, accuracy or wording? That would help me understand what needs to be corrected and improve the article accordingly. Thank you. TudorTulok (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I have already told you what needs to be corrected. You need to stop using AI. That is what needs to be corrected. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.