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)

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)

Hey @EmoryNB, I've gotten the CSS page to work correctly now. Just have to to edit the user talk:gurkubondinn/Header page I think. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the .css page to the User: namespace so that I could use the User talk:gurkubondinn/Header/styles.css talk page to make an {{edit interface-protected}} request to change the content model of the page. Not sure if the .css page needs to be in the User talk: namespace, but I don't think so. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Diff/1377999102. Thank you, @EmoryNB! ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

No problem! Nice to see it finally done :) — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 14:00, 2 October 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)

Hello there. I have published my third (and hopefully final) go around of removing AI generated text, and awkward syntax. I have removed some, rewritten others, and changed up the ordering afterwards to make more sense chronologically.

This was a really informative experience. Thank you for your help! American1254 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

And thank you for putting in the work on this. I'm more than happy to just take what you've said at face value, and I won't be reading your edits with a fine-toothed comb. Again thank you, I really appreciate this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Pings

Heyo. While I greatly appreciate you dealing with unknown params in edits like Special:Diff/prev/1373006026, there is no need to ping me each time in the edit summary. You aren't fixing them for me, you are fixing them for the wiki so that your revert doesn't remove data from the page. I appreciate you taking the time to do it, but I don't need a ping each time. If you run into an issue or need help, never hesitate to reach out. Always happy help where I can. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I know, but we're allowed to have some fun around this place sometimes. :) There's so much drudgework that sometimes it's just nice to be a little bit less stiff about things. But that's just my opinion, etc etc. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh to be clear, I have ZERO objection to having fun on here! Just so you understand, I just logged on to 47 different notifications (and I've only been offline for about 16 hours)... I'm just trying to cut down on the noise where I can. I don't want to mute notifications from you incase it is something important. Don't take my comment as me being anti-fun! I just want to reduce the noise. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I just got my unread notification count down below 80 today. I'm sure it will be up over 99 again tomorrow. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

There are 2 types of people, I'm DEFINITELY type A.... lol Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Lol, those are rookie numbers. You should see my inbox (or how many open tabs I have). ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Heya! Could you take a look at the {{infobox settlement}} on the Hallormsstaður page that I recently created? I really struggled with the map parameters, and I'm not sure if there's a better way to show the map that I missed. I got the zoom level on the interactive map correct, since it's a tiny village and I liked that I got the streets to show up. But maybe it's possible to improve it somehow?

This is really small potatoes, but you're the first editor I thought of when it comes to infoboxes and I thought it would be more fun to talk about actual encyclopaedia writing than the LLM headache. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

HAHA! Touched you thought of me. Happy to help, however I looked at the page and it looks great to me! Is there something in particular you are trying to fix/do different? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that I was trying to get the name of the village to show up in the interactive map, but I'm not sure if it would make sense (at least after I adjusted the zoom level). But either way, I'm happy about it if you say that the infobox is well-done as it is. Thanks for looking it over, I appreciate it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

My pleasure! Hit me up anytime. Happy to help where I can. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Mohammed Rashed Alsuwaidi

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,

​Thank you for reviewing the draft.

I wanted to kindly let you know that the text and structure have been entirely hand-written and revised to meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view and encyclopedic style, without automated generation.

​Could you please advise if there are specific sections that still need improvement, or if the {{AI-generated}} tag can now be removed? ​Thank you for your time and guidanceBassamsaber1 (talk) 20:31, 7 September 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.

Heads up Re: AI Concerns from my talk page

I was going to talk about this on my talk page and not take this to yours, but it seems that the section being archived makes it difficult. In any event, I wanted to follow up regarding our previous discussion regarding your concerns. I went ahead and amended the access dates for the citations on both the Black Star (music label) and Natan (singer); I changed them to around the date of the article creations, as that's when I reviewed the sources. For some reason I never got around to them, but now that's fixed.

Not sure if it was worth mentioning this to you, but nevertheless wanted to give you a heads up :)

Oh, and on another note: thanks for the kind words at the end of your message! It's honestly crazy how many articles exist on other language wikipedias but not English; it's been fun bringing them over :) Losipov (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, translating from other projects is valuable. But I just question the usefulness of machine translations, because someone who pastes a different-language article into ChatGPT and instructing it to translate, and then pasting that into the English Wikipedia doesn't actually do any useful work, that is just saving a static copy that anyone can produce themselves. I'm not saying that this is what you do, or have done, but it does seem to happen a lot. I dislike how translations are sometimes treated as a trivial task that anyone can do. Or worse, that can be delegated to algorithms. Actual translations take a lot of work, careful reading of all of the sources, and a deep understanding of both languages. That is actually valuable work.

It's also valuable to translate from the English Wikipedia into other Wikipedias, because the English Wikipedia is by far the largest Wikipedia. For some languages/countries this matters less because of widespread English knowledge, but for others it is more valuable because people in those regions are less likely to have a good understanding of English, or less likely to want to read English sources.

What I'm trying to say is that translations not only matter, but they also deserve to be treated as something that is worth doing well and worth making a real effort with. So thank you for doing that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:47, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Sorry for the late reply, but of course, and that makes sense! The reason for my reply though, is that I forgot to mention something about the Content Translation tool I told you about on my talk page: machine translations on that tool are currently disabled for everybody (at least on the English Wikipedia). I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to inform you, but might be something to keep in mind in the future (perhaps for trying to determine LLM use, but I'm not too sure). Losipov (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's enabled for the wiki itself, but you have to enable it in your settings? ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Rejection of John Michael Faile Article

I used a large language model mainly to help format and organize the information into Wikipedia markup. I gathered the information and sources myself and reviewed the article for accuracy. The model was essentially used as an editing and formatting tool, not as the source of the article’s information. SouthernMac (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to post this message in so many places. The WP:NOLLM guideline does not allow for the sort of usage that you have described, you must write your drafts and edits yourself. You might want to read the WP:YFA guide. Keep in mind that writing a new article is often seen as one of the most difficult tasks that you can do on Wikipedia, it isn't something that you just slap together in an hour or something. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:39, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

If you had responded to any of my initial messages replies, I wouldn’t have posted it in so many places.

I would argue that formatting an article into Wiki text is more intellectually honest than using an LLM to translate an article, which is permitted. My actions of adding an article are intended to serve the site’s readers, and I don’t see how my use of an LLM has interfered with the goals of Wikipedia. SouthernMac (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Editing history is public.

• 19:51 UTC: Diff/1374090572 to User talk:SouthernMac § Your submission at Articles for creation: John Michael Faile (Athlete) (September 9)
• 19:51 UTC: Diff/1374090598 to User talk:SouthernMac § Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:John Michael Faile (Athlete) 2
• 19:52 UTC: Diff/1374090674 to User talk:gurkubondinn § Rejection of John Michael Faile Article (this thread)
• 19:54 UTC: Diff/1374090896 to Draft talk:John Michael Faile (Athlete) § Contested deletion

Please read the WP:YESNOLLM and WP:YESLLM essays. Your motivations don't matter, the WP:NOLLM guideline applies and you must write your edits and drafts yourself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I said my initial messages. Which was in reference to the first time I submitted a draft. Not the one you rejected yesterday.

Verstehst du? SouthernMac (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Ja, ich verstehe dich ganz gut. Aber das hier ist die englischsprachigen Wikipedia, dass sollten wir Englisch sprechen. I was talking about the messages about the decline (not rejection). ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I will spend time rewriting the article myself with a formatting coach. Thanks for the clarification. SouthernMac (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

What is a formatting coach? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

They help people who only know HTML write in Wiki text. SouthernMac (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:SCAM, especially if there is money involved. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, but this is somebody I know through Discord—no money involved SouthernMac (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. That's fine, I was worried someone had seen this on Wikipedia and contacted you. That happens more often than you would think, unfortunately. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Huh. Good to know. I just called him by that title because it was concise. I can see how it sounds scam-ish. SouthernMac (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure. So I asked to make sure it wasn't something like that. Getting help from friends is just a good idea tbh, nothing wrong with that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey @SouthernMac, I just checked on your draft. I think that you should continue working on it, but set your expectations a bit lower in terms of length or completeness. Just write a short article first, focus on finding and adding good high quality sources instead. The article doesn't have to be perfect to be accepted, it's better to have a short article that has great sources than trying to aim for a "full" or "complete" article from the get-go. You can work on it and improve it later, and someone else will also inevitably come along and edit it anyway. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin Noticeboard

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.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EAGLEofPEACE321 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No, you used the incorrect notice. You filed to WP:AN, not to the WP:ANI board, and you also used the wrong notification template on Ayaltimo's talk page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is NPOV Violations in al-Tirmidhi page. EAGLEofPEACE321 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 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.

ARY Plus moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to ARY Plus. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no indication of notability of the subject, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and it appears to consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:25, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! Automated notice as part of using the WP:DRAFTIFY script... But just fyi since I saw you tagged it as AI generated... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. I opened the WP:AIN § User:Kskhh thread about the user yesterday. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Deletion oif Peter Brunner

Dear Gurkubondinn, let me please answer you again and say I'm sorry! I respectfully ask you to support me in providing visibility to the work of a socially relevant and humanistic filmmaker Peter Brunner who just premiered a highly relevant movie (Down the Arm of God) about homelessness in the USA, which was discussed by all relevant outlets. Yes, my English is not perfect, which is why I had it corrected so that you feel respected. Yes, I’m not trained in HTML, but all the sources I provided and all the texts I wrote on “Peter Brunner’s” director site and the “Down the Arm of God” movie site are correct and well researched. All I’m asking you is to please be supportive and help and not make it just difficult or an endless endevour. Why would you do that? It's information about important stuff that along with th epublication and release of the movie is relevant and important to spread the humanistic conversation around homelessnes solutions. Please be supportive. Yes, you are iportant to keep the gate of an ezyclopedia and yes it has to fulfill all the standards, but please be open to just helop in this case. I will not publish any other sites then trying to be helpful to this filmmakers work. Thank you! AustrianNewWave (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, this is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline and has been explained to you multiple times. Please don't fragment this discussion, so let's keep it in the WP:AIN § User:AustrianNewWave noticeboard thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I tried that and was not allowed to answer anymore! So what do you suggest I should do - I did write the texts not an LLM. I just cant write HTML. Can you help me optimize it? All informations and sources are real. I hope for your support or could you please connect me to soeone who can? thanks AustrianNewWave (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Jalambang, The Gambia (no artificial intelligence used)

The article “Jalambang, The Gambia” did not contain artificial intelligence composed content, as was cited. This was an authentic article about a village in Gambia. Could it please be approved? ~2026-50003-69 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

From what I can see, that draft was pretty clearly LLM-generated. It was also submitted by a different account, so unless you are the same user then you wouldn't be able to know for certain how it was produced. If you are that user then you might want to log in to your account. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:17, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

re: Alawites

Hi, I'm assuming the "NOLLM" tag on this was aimed at the previous editor who added the citation I fixed, rather than at me? I was just practicing fixing citation errors if I notice them. I did actually check that the Britannica article supported the statement; although that sent me off on a search for whether Britannica is considered a reliable source at all. Still don't know. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, correct! The URL (and title for some reason) in Diff/1375054437 was WP:AIMARKDOWN formatted. But since you have read and verified the reference, please do feel free to reinstate it. To be clear, I wasn't saying that you had used AI, it was indeed aimed at the user that added the citation which you fixed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for taking the time to read and verify the reference. I appreciate it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'll leave it - I was wary of their edit anyway because of the odd formatting of the ref but not strongly enough to revert it. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Did not use AI

I dont know how you think I used AI to compose the plot summary for Season 3 episode 2 titled "The Butterfly Effect" of the tv show "Heroes".. but just to clarify, I DID NOT USE AI TO ADD THE LENGTHY PLOT SUMMARY.

I dont know how else to prove it otherwise, but NO AI WAS USED. I watched the episode and typed up exactly what happened.

I don't use AI to add plot summaries because I know that AI is not always right, so instead I take time out of my busy day and type it up as it happens. DesiMTatro (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Continuation of my last topic

Please stop deleting my plot summaries, because I will keep adding them no matter how many times you try to delete them, because I will keep adding it again and again and again, and I willnever stop, because I did not use AI. DesiMTatro (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

multiple accounts??

why should that matter? DesiMTatro (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry page, in particular the §§ Alternative account notification​ and Legitimate uses sections. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? Drmies (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Drmies you have made an enemy. I am a very skilled tech savvy 29 year old female. do not mess with me DesiMTatro (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

this is who destroyed my edits: Gurkubondinn. I dont know why they did, and I dont know who they think they are, but they need to be stopped. DesiMTatro (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

oh no. Gurkubondinn... you are the one who kept taking me edits out. DesiMTatro (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I reverted you once. Then you started edit warring with yourself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

no I didnt.. it was :Drmies.. and you DesiMTatro (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Tomb of Tetinebefou

You beat me to the speedy, thanks. Possible sock of another AI slop merchant, currently at ANI? ~2026-50087-13 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have the ANI thread? ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

This one. Beyond the username, there's no edit overlap between the two. ~2026-50087-13 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's probably worth mentioning in the ANI. The username looked like something out of a sock drawer to me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a link to AIN though? ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

There seems to have been an ANI thread involving the other user in 2025 though: Diff/1318060735. But I didn't find it when I searched earlier, though I didn't look very. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Large Language Model

Hello Ben, Google Translate is allowed from what I read only this morning. If you'd skipped to the edit summary you would see that it's all from the same article on French Wikipedia as well as the citations. Some need to be updated manually. Once it saved, I go back and update the citations, difficult to do when it's reverted while I'm busy. I may need your help if what I'm updating is not working. Over the 12 years, this is the first time I've run into a problem with another editor by using Google translate and then going thru the text to see if it is correct. Avi8tor (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry Avi8tor, I forgot about this message because I'd responded to you on WP:AIN already. But thanks for this, and thanks for your good attitude as well. I want to apologise for the incorrect assumption, because you were not being dishonest. You were just unaware that you were incorrect, which is absolutely not your fault. But so was I too, because I was unaware that my assumptions were incorrect. At least we both learned something new. So I wanted to thank you for the patient and good conversation. You're clearly here in good faith and to improve the encyclopaedia, and I'm sorry for drawing the wrong conclusion. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the late reply, I have been out of touch with the internet for about 12 days. I learnt quite a lot about something I was not aware of until these conversations started. Avi8tor (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, and I also learned something that I didn't know before. It's never a bad thing to have learned something, you just have to be willing to understand that you did not know something. Not knowing something just means you have a chance to learn something new.

If I may ask, were you a commercial pilot? I think I just saw you say that you had been a pilot, but you didn't specify what kind? ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:39, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I held an Airline Transport Pilot License and did fly for an airline but spent the majority of my career flying corporate jets worldwide. It's good to be on the same time zone for extended periods. Both require an Airline transport pilot license to be Pilot in Command. Avi8tor (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Re User:Harold9595959

Hi Gurkubondinn. I noticed you raised AI concerns about User:Harold9595959, and that they were quickly blocked. Simultaneously, during recent NPP backlog work, I found and nominated two of their creations (Edward Hatt, George Lock) for deletion, and began looking at others in their history (latest AfDs today: Toby Holmes, Chay Tilt, for example), and am now thinking that many/all their creations might need reviewing. Just thought I would let you know. Best wishes Paul W (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep.. This will probably be a pretty big cleanup case, there's 162 page creations and thousands of pages. You might want to chime in on the WP:AIN § User:Harold9595959 thread. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, gurkubondinn. Have chipped in on the thread. Paul W (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Swapnil Mahaling

hello sir - this is about page Swapnil Mahaling - I undertand your concern, information about this perons is helpful for people to access his work in hindi and marathi televison, as a writer and director ... if some technical problems are there about language or other things, kindly help in resolving it, instead of deleting the page ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AABABHAU (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@AABABHAU: the English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, it is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. It is not about the subject of the page, I have just marked at as being AI-generated. Unfortunately you have created multiple copies of the page, which prevents it from being sent to draft space. You should not copypaste pages like this, you should have submitted it for an WP:AFC review instead. You would also have been free to move it into article space, but that would just meant that it would be sent to draft space or an WP:AFD discussion would have been started. Please stop using AI to edit Wikipedia, you must write your submissions and edits yourself. Keep in mind that creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks that you can do on Wikipedia, it is not something that you just throw together in a few minutes. The WP:YFA guide might be helpful to you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

AS A PAGE / ARTICLE CREATOR, I AGREE .... PLEASE DELETE THE DRAFT / PAGE ... AABABHAU (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Taşköprüzade

Can you review the recent edits to Taşköprüzade? You recently reverted for LLM and looks like a new user has dumped another batch of LLM... I want to AGF here, as they say they are using google translate so could possibly just be a formatting issue??? You're the AI expert... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted. I don't think it is LLM, as AFAIK most LLMs don't do short, stubby sentences like this, however the text is so irreparably broken, formatting-wise (nonexistent named references) that a revert would be justified regardless. msk 23:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks MSK! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason that I reverted the first user was because I saw Diff/1376368732 (AbuseLog/45201772) in the filter logs, and then Diff/1376267947 to Taşköprüzade had triggered a paste check. Then the user confirmed LLM use and a lack of English fluency in Diff/1376379300. After the new user started editing, this user removed the talk page section in Diff/1376394972, so I think that I might share your suspicion.

The more recent edits by the other user are citing enwiki in AbuseLog/45203239 and Diff/1376394160 (AbuseLog/45203241), which I don't think that Google Translate would (or at least should not) up and do on its own. The edit also added five redlinks to the 'See also' section. The edit summary also claims to have worked on this for about two hours but the user was created about half an hour before the edit was submitted. The edit summary is also oddly preemptively defensive about not using AI considering that this is the user's first edit. Since the edit summary invites us to use an AI detector, I plugged two paragraphs into Pangram and the result that came back was that it is AI-generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

While I think that this is AI-generated (largely because of the edit summary and the user's behaviour), @MSK is absolutely correct that this could be reverted without considering the LLM issues. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

They do say This material was already on our wiki, which unfortunately went offline which could explain the citing Wikipedia (though I struggle to AGF here), and ~100 words is not a lot for Pangram to go on. msk 23:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Tried it with 279 words and got the same result from Pangram. To be clear, I'm not going off the Pangram result, I just tried it because the edit summary confidently invited me to. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

A kind request to reconsider your opinion on my article Devkund Math

Dear Sir, You deleted my article "Devkund Math" assuming it to be created by LLM. Please let me beg to say that I don't use any AI. I worked many days offline to write the article, spent many hours to collect the verifiable references, struggled with citations, browsed again each references to find appropriate portion of text to use as quote to support my article.

After I did so much hard labour, I published the article quickly. Please address my issue and protect my hard work. Also guide me how to avoid such scene ever again in the future. JyotiTheLightHouse (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I've responded to you in § Devkund Math moved to draftspace on your talk page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sir, I read.

Kindly let me beg to say you that i have not used even a single charactor of AI. as per your suggestion, I explored sandbox, learnt and started using. Please visit and you will get all about me and my genuine work.

Kind request please re consider your action. JyotiTheLightHouse (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for communicating with me directly without using AI to do it. Please stop using AI on Wikipdia, it is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. You may be interested in contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language instead, or make smaller edits here on the English Wikipedia that you can make with your current level of English. If Hindi is your native language, then you may want to contribute to the Hindi Wikipedia project. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is just the largest project and so it has the most contributors. Other smaller Wikiprojects need new contributors much more than English Wikipedia does.

Writing new articles is one of the most difficult tasks that you can do on Wikipedia, and it is not something that you should rush straight to doing if you are new. The WP:YFA guide may be useful for you. You don't need to be a native speaker or write English perfectly, but you need to have the sufficient level of English to be able to write an article yourself without using AI to assist you. The only way to learn a language is to actually use it, so if you keep using AI for English then you will never get any better. So you are doing yourself a favour by replying to me directly like this, it is good practice.

On a personal note, please don't call me "sir". I know that it is a sign of respect in your culture, and so I appreciate the gesture and the intention behind it (where I am from, people always call each other by their given names and would never use titles or honorifics). On Wikipedia it is best to just show your respect to others by taking them seriously and listening to advice. There is no need to show deference, and it's best to treat everyone like your equal. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Guido Mazzetti

Hello, the source of my edit was the italian version of the article it:Guido Mazzetti, and I used LLM only to assist in translation, to make the language more fluid, and also to proofcheck text. I guarantee you that I personally vetted all of the info. I would be really thankful if you could reinstate the page, or telling me exactly which parts of the page would be to removed. I am not new to Wikipedia, I have history of good edits and I'm willing to do it the proper way. Grifomaniacs (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I rewrote the article, added there a template to communicate it is mainly been translated from the Italian Wiki article, and submitted it for review. Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Gurkubondinn, could you please take a moment to review Draft:Guido Mazzetti or let me know if it's ready? Grifomaniacs (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It isn't, because it is a copyright violation since it doesn't comply with the attribution requirements of the CC-BY-SA license. It is also pretty clearly AI-generated, which is why I moved it to draft space in the first place. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gurkubondinn since the translation template {Translated page} was added to the article we are perfectly compliant with the CC-BY-SA license under standard policy across Wikimedia projects.

It is a translation, it is not AI generated. Grifomaniacs (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No that is not enough to meet the legal requirements. The template documentation makes it clear that it is an informational template only.

It might be a machine-translation, but that doesn't make it any less LLM-generated. It doesn't matter how your prompt is phrased, it is still generated by an LLM (that was prompted). ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. From: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (WP:CWW):

• WP:TFOLWP

Translations of copyrighted text, even from other Wikimedia projects, are derivative works, and attribution must be given to satisfy licensing requirements. When translating material from a Wikimedia project licensed under CC BY-SA, a note identifying the Wikimedia project (such as an interlanguage link) and the page name must be provided. The preferred way to do this is in an edit summary in the translated page, ideally in its first edit, as in this example (using a French Wikipedia article as an example):

Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Exact name of French article; see its history for attribution.

Where applicable, the template {{Translated page}} may also be added to the talk page to supplement copyright attribution.

The page is ready to be published with proper edit summary, on top of the template in the talk page.

You are also missing out with the process of translation I followed, which has never been a blatant copy and paste of machine generated content. Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation

The guideline explicitly permits translation tools (including LLMs) on the condition that a human thoroughly reviews, verifies, and polishes the text. I manually verified, cross-checked sources from the Italian wiki, and rewrote the syntax.

Also finally, I remember you another great pillar of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF). Making accusations of intentional copyright violation when standard cross-wiki practices are being followed does not foster any collaborative environment and kills the spirit of Wikipedia. Grifomaniacs (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely the attribution that is lacking in your draft. This is a legal requirement and is not optional. I am fully aware of what the LLMT guideline says, and I have not claimed differently. But even if something meets the guideline (which your draft did not the last time I checked), it is still LLM-generated. Meeting or not meeting LLMT is not a definition of weather something is LLM-generated or not. The definition of that is if it was generated by an LLM, and just because your prompt to the LLM was an instruction to produce a translation, what the LLM produced is still produced by the LLM. Nobody has made any "accusation of intentional copyright violation", as you've put it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn how do you suggest to solve it? I think it's easy to solve the copyright violation claim you raised. I will simply add the "Content in this edit is translated from the existing Italian Wikipedia article at fr:Exact name of French article; see its history for attribution." in the edit history plus ensuring to add the translated template in the talk page upon republishing the article and it's done.

I also completely reviewed the translation. You are not assuming Good Faith (WP:AGF) when you say the content is LLM produced, completely discarding my original contribution in the translation, including verification of tone, suitability for Wikipedia and manual markup edits. The article as it is now is good, but if you can help me identify the part you still consider problematic, I'm happy to change it! Grifomaniacs (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, is WP:RIA and would solve the attribution issue. It is not optimal, since it is not the same edit as introduced the text (a machine translation of someone else's work licenced under CC-BY-SA and requiring attribution), but it is a valid WP:PIA. But WP:ATTREQ is absolutely mandatory, so the page should not be moved out of draft space before this has happened. You should also include either a timestamp or (preferably) a revision ID, so that the exact revision that was machine translated can be easily identified. This you can use the {{translated page}} template on the talk page thought, it is meant to provide this information to future editors and to readers. Especially later on when the edit with the attribution becomes harder to find.

You are also misunderstanding something here. Describing an LLM-generated translation as LLM-generated is just a factual statement that describes the origin of the text. Just because a prompt includes the word "translate" doesn't magically somehow make the output not be LLM-generated. Anything that comes out of an LLM is by definition generated by that LLM (this is a tautology). This has nothing to with AGF, it is just a factual description. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

In the same way as if you use a pen to handwrite a text, that is pen-generated. The hand is what makes the difference. Same here, I curated the text, I can guarantee you. And as long as I do the curation part, that falls under Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation.

On the attribution part, would this edit be enough, or should I do something different, like a new edit comment referencing the history of edits? How could it be solved? Wouldn't be easier to just copy the draft content in the article at Guido Mazzetti and adding straight there on the first edit the attribution in the summary? Grifomaniacs (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No, then the text would be written. When you have an LLM generate the text from you the text is generated, or more specifically it is LLM-generated. You didn't write it, in fact nobody write it. It was generated by an algorithm. There is a huge difference between writing something yourself, either with a pen or with a keyboard, and pasting a text that was generated by an algorithm. And no, the LLMT guideline isn't quite that simple. Your article were identified as LLM-generated by two editors, independently of each other. That means that it fails the NOLLM guideline, and the LLMT guideline is not a "loophole" to to the NOLLM guideline.

Regarding the Diff/1377234062 edit, I'm not sure that this is sufficient. Because you changed some of the article material, the edit summary suggests that it is only that specific change that is attributed because the edit summary says that content in this edit is translated from the Italian Wikipedia. You need to attribute the whole article (or specifically the entirety of the text) to its original author. You should use a WP:DUMMY edit to WP:RIA, but this is suboptimal. This is why it is so important to read the guidelines (yourself, not ask a chatbot to "summarise" it for you because they almost always get it wrong). It is best to provide the WP:TFOLWP compliant attribution in the first edit, and in any edits that add translated CC-BY-SA licenced text that was originally written by someone else. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I did indeed a WP:DUMMY edit to WP:RIA so it's good enough and that front is solved.

But, assuming I didn't read the guidelines is bad from your end now. Of course I read them! I need to remind you again to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith].

Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation totally stands here, I know both languages fluently and also updated the content in several rounds from the very first step. You are right in principle, but your radar is totally off here. My error was in not being clear with the edit summary this was a translation, I take it, and it generated confusion also on the other editor. I want to fix this error, for the rest it would be great if you could look at the articles and what I write in general without prejudice. Otherwise we won't go anywhere and we are losing precious time that could be spent in content writing and improvement. Grifomaniacs (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No, you still seem to be holding the misunderstanding. It is your LLM-use is that taking up other people's time. Knowing the languages fluently is not sufficient, but it is a good starting point. I have explained this to you in the WP:AIN § User:Grifomaniacs thread, so I won't repeat it here. But I still encourage you to provide the exact revision ID of the source for the machine translation, it would make it easier for someone to check how good the translation is in terms of localisation and how faithfully it replicates the source text (LLM-generated machine translations are extremely prone to adding new things that were not present in the source text or altering the meaning of it).

The thing is that LLMT does not "stand" here, mainly for two reasons. The attribution is absolutely mandatory, and you had not provided it on any of them (which also does suggest that you did not read the guidelines until they were shown to you today), and two experienced editors have independently noticed that they are LLM-generated. Just because LLMT is an exception to NOLLM does not mean that it is a loophole to it, machine translations can still fail the NOLLM guideline.

Assuming that someone has not read guidelines is AGF, because assuming that they have read the guidelines means that you are also assuming that they are intentionally violating them. That would be assuming bad faith, the good faith explanation is that they are unaware. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The problem @Gurkubondinnis that you assumed I used a chatbot to summarise article guidelines, that is exactly what you wrote:

This is why it is so important to read the guidelines (yourself, not ask a chatbot to "summarise" it for you because they almost always get it wrong)

So I have to repeat again, to AGF. I read the guidelines, I re-read them and I adjusted the attribution issue. Over the span of 20 years at Wikipedia I've read the guidelines multiple times, and every time there was a need I re-read them, like in this case.

The attribution is solved now. The attribution is also the source of the misunderstanding coming from two experienced editors, and I take it on me, not on you, to be clear. Grifomaniacs (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That was advice. Since you kept insisting that you had read the guidelines, but seemed unaware of the attribution requirements, it did not seem like you had read the guideline well enough. The attribution requirement is a requirement of the CC-BY-SA license and of the WMF ToS, so this is not something new. If you have been inserting unattributed derivative works into the project for 20 years, that is a big problem that will need to be sorted out.

And no, it was not the lack of attribution that made us notice the articles. That would have required us knowing that these were machine translations, but since there was nothing indicating that these were machine translations that is not possible. Both me and Fermiboson found these while looking for LLM-generated edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

AI master...

I'm skeptical of a user with 2 total edits dumping +12,149 with Special:Diff/1364271124/1376764001... AI??? You're the best I know at this but let me know if me pinging you with these is annoying... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:02, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit filter trips are especially egregious. I've reverted everything, and left a warning on their talk page. msk 03:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I always forget about edit filters... Thank you! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/Unfiltered might be useful in that case. msk 03:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

OHhHhH! Me likey!!! Also, same user... Special:Diff/1376771424. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Response

Just to respond to this (since I know Gnomingstuff doesn't like excessive pings or talkpage messages): I'm pretty sure this is all public and a fairly well known tactic, so I can say it w/out spilling any WP:BEANS, but UPEs (and certain varieties of socks) like to hide their regular activity by editing in a bunch of different areas. If you're a UPE and you want autopatrolled/NPP rights, it makes zero sense to only create articles in areas which you have a COI. That is how you are caught. It does make sense, apparently, to make, like, 50 different species articles, get advanced rights, then go and make the new articles/review your alt account's paid articles. Cons: the camouflage articles are often awful, but don't get caught by the spam brigade because they're not spam. Just copyvios, unattributed translations from other Wikipedias, massive OR headaches, and, now, LLM-created stuff. You can see an example on User talk:FoCuSandLeArN, and for a non-strictly spam variety, the fallout at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Galamore. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, and the crossover between UPE and LLM is pretty large. It's also an excellent tool for them to quckly create these warm-up articles and edits without needing to put much thought into it. Woah, that user has 78k edits...! I think that I have come across the Owenglyndur user at some point, I remember the username because it's an incorrect spelling of an Icelandic non-word so it stands out to me. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Douglas Grant

In the app, I manually added the location of the massacre (Boonjie ) and the name of the people/tribe (Ngadjon). This wasn't AI.

The facts are significant in Douglas Grant's story and is documented in the film "The Skin of Others".

Check the reference https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-blog/2017/apr/03/narchas-remains-have-been-repatriated-but-colonialisms-malevolence-lingers

I'm hoping you might reconsider.

Take care.

Arts culture editor (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Arts culture editor. I'm reading the source now, and there are some corrections that you should make first.

−

were killed by white minors

+

were killed by white miners

The source says massacre of Ngadjon by white miners and native police. A minor is a person under the age of legal adulthood, but a miner is a person that works in mining. They were murdered by people working in mines (and native police officers), not young people.

−

during the [[Australian frontier wars|Australian Frontier Wars]] <ref>{{cite news | ...}}</ref> , he was

+

during the [[Australian frontier wars|Australian Frontier Wars]],<ref>{{cite news | ...}}</ref> he was

You should move the reference so that it comes directly after the comma (no space) like WP:CITEPUNCT describes.

This definitely seems like something that should be included in the article, so definitely feel free to make these corrections and reinstate the edit. Let me know if you need any help with it. Thank you for taking the time to improve the Douglas Grant article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made the update. I hope this is now ok.

It would be great if the link function in the app had more info as per the source you provided. It's a very technical process to add a link and hard for a newbie. Arts culture editor (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Check the reply that I left on your talk page. You can try using the WP:REFTOOLBAR to add references in the source editor, or you can try using the WP:VISUAL editor if you want a WYSIWYG approach. If you want to learn how to write references in wikicode, then take a look at the User:gurkubondinn/REFPRIMER guide that I wrote. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made the edit. I hope it is ok.

I appreciate the guidance. Arts culture editor (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Made some small changes to your edit. Don't forget the access-date parameter, it indicates when someone last read the source and verified that it supports the claims that are cited to it. Other than that, good work and thank you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your assistance. I really appreciate it and promise I'm learning. Arts culture editor (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries, we're all new in the beginning. Thank you for stopping using AI though, I really appreciate that. Being new and making mistakes or not knowing how something works is absolutely fine, and I will much rather help you learn than have to clean up an AI-generated mess. I hope that you like editing Wikipedia and that you will stay around and continue editing! You're always more than welcome to ask me if you want help with anything. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Note I cannot find the visual or wysiwyg editor in the app. There is a link function but it only works for linking to other WIKi pages.

It's very hard to make edits in a mobile phone in the app. Arts culture editor (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, you're using the WP:MOBILE phone app. I don't know anything about the phone app, but someone on at the WP:HELPDESK or in the WP:TEAHOUSE can probably help you. I would just recommend editing Wikipedia on your computer instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a personal computer.

Thanks again for your help. Arts culture editor (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia in the browser on your phone (or tablet). That might be easier, I've heard that the app is not great for editing. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you can click on "Desktop view" to get the desktop site instead of the mobile site (and you can click on "Mobile view" to switch back to the mobile site). I think that the mobile and desktop sites have different editors. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:06, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Noted with thanks Arts culture editor (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I hate to say it but the link function in the browser (both mobile and desktop) is the same as the app. I'm using Safari. It doesn't add any of the extra info that you have to include in the code. Arts culture editor (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

there seems to be a misunderstanding

Hi I am User:Nyeta and in the article of Taleju, it seems that there is a misunderstanding regardindg the originality of the text. Therefore, i shall tell you the story from my side.

So, when i first encountered the article, it already had a AI-Generated tag and it was very likely that in its original form it was indeed AI generated text since the citations were all poor random website-citation and the text itself showed heavy signs of AI use. So, I took it upon myself to improve the article, which I first did by adding proper sources. And then i started to improve the article section by section, removing everything from before and adding things based on my study of the sources.

I had changed the content in the lead section, the Name section and the Mythology section when my exams came and so i paused my editing. Meanwhile, I did not remove the AI generated tag, nor did i remove the sections that i hadn't touched yet, which likely WERE AI generated. But it seems you have flagged the content that I wrote based on proper citations and sources, as also AI generated. You can check the Edit History if you don't believe me.

I believe this is where our misunderstanding came from! if there's any more confusion feel free to ask and if its clear could you also remove the AI generated tag since i spent a lot of weeks studying the sources to write it (and its so sad to see them tagged as AII) :(( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyeta (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nyeta, sorry I didn't see your message until now because you placed it almost at the top of my talk page (new messages should be the WP:BOTTOMPOST).

You're right, I can see on xtools:authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Taleju Bhawani that you have indeed almost completely rewritten the Taleju Bhawani article and removed the AI-generated text. I've removed the {{ai-generated}} tag in Diff/1377456428 now. Thank you for cleaning up this article, I appreciate it! ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Article flag

I've created quite a few articles over the past few years which have been fine (all by myself I should add), but I suppose I was eventually going to get a more critiqued check. What has triggered the review for User:The Equalizer/Skidbrooke with Saltfleet Haven as I presume it is a misunderstanding. The Equalizer (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, which is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. That draft has certain technical indicators that it is unambiguously generated by an LLM, which means that it can be speedily deleted. You are also not permitted to remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Question about decline of Draft:Benjamin tenOever

Dear Gurkubondinn,

I was disappointed to see that my request for Wikipedia page was declined this morning on account of the material being AI-assisted. I want to be clear that the material uploaded was written by me, but I did use a software tool to help convert my citation sources so they would be formatted in a way that was compatible with Wikipedia's platform. I also did mention this as a disclosure. As I would really like to generate a site in my new role as Chair of Microbiology at NYU, can I use if you might let me know ask why it was flagged and rejected so I might fix this and/or, in so doing, perhaps reconsider have you reconsider your decision? In any regard, I thank you for your time and hope you might be able to help me resolve this issue.

Warm regards, Ben

Benjamin tenOever, PhD Chair, Department of Microbiology Professor of Microbiology | Medicine Jan T. Vilcek Professor of Molecular Pathogenesis

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben-tenOever (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello namesake. In case you aren't aware, you posted a full email signature here. The English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, and the current version of the draft was both produced very quickly and is substantially similar to the previous version that was speedily deleted as unambiguously AI-geneated. Please don't use AI to talk to me, if you did. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Gurkubondinn. My apologies for this rocky start to my hopes of generating a Wikipedia page for myself. I absolutely understand and respect the conditions of Wikipedia and will do my best to do better moving forward if given the opportunity to do so. I did remove my signature information as suggested and do want to state again that the content I was proposing to post was written by me, but I admittedly did use AI initially to improve the clarity of the text and help with formatting. When this was flagged, I re-wrote the text myself but retained the formatting for the hyperlinks because I thought it would be most helpful in reviewing the supporting documentation. If my submission remains problematic in your opinion, I will step back and leave it to independent editors to decide whether an article should be written. Warm regards, Ben Ben-tenOever (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Ben-tenOever. Just so that you know, I have edited your comment above because I noticed that you had slightly changed it. I restored the original message, and marked the changed passages with WP:REDACT tags to show what had been changed. It is usually not best practice to edit your own messages after the fact, because this can change the meaning of what someone has already replied to or has already read. The way that it is now shows clearly what was changed and what it said originally. I did not assume that you did this in bad faith or in an attempt to obfuscate anything. You were probably just not aware of these norms, so I wanted to let you know.

But about your draft, I want to point you to the WP:PROUD essay. There are lots downsides to having a biography on Wikipedia that may not have occurred to you at all. Personally, I would never want to have a Wikipedia page, and I am glad that I don't. Also, if you are notable (in the Wikipedia WP:N sense of the word), someone else will write an article about you sooner or later. It is very hard for people to write objectively about someone that they know, let alone about themselves. As an academic, and working for the institution that you do, it is actually very likely that you are notable and meet the WP:NPROF guideline (but I haven't actually checked myself). So you may find yourself with a Wikipedia biography written by someone else sooner or later. If you wish to keep working on the Draft:Benjamin tenOever page, don't let me stop you and feel free to ask me if there's anything that I can help you with. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hsueh-Chia Chang please check

Hsueh-Chia Chang shows hints of LLM, although refs look fine and scanners show nothing. Thoughts? Thanks. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The initial Diff/1376139002 revision has two WP:AIREDCATs, and the first doi:10.1039/C4LC01394H that I clicked on in reference nr. 17 returns a 404 not found error. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Reference nr. 10 also had doi:10.1017/S0022112093001481 that doesn't exist either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Enough to draftify if I add the COI? Ldm1954 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, at least imo this should probably be sent to draft space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

While the DOIs were wrong, these are real papers: doi:10.1039/c5lc00036j and doi:10.1017/S0022112093001521. –jacobolus (t) 18:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

They often are, it is the same with URLs quite often. Doesn't make it any less of an AISIGN though, this happens because the LLM model predicted the wrong sequence of characters in the DOI (or URL) that it generated. Often this also means that they don't quite support what is being cited to them, but I have no comment on that because I haven't looked and I'm quite out of my depth when it comes to biomolecular engineering. I think that Ldm would be much better equipped to evaluate that than me, and I'd take their word for it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. #10 also omitted "vertically" from the title "Nonlinear evolution of waves on a vertically falling film". The rest of the citation metadata on both papers seems correct. –jacobolus (t) 18:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Why are you using AI Tag Blindly?

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.

---

Are you sure "The reason given is: rapid edits, creatd with AIBOLD"?

Is rapid edits illegal? You have yourself earlier admitted you use AI tags on doubt. Where is your sandbox? Tell me where to complain your behaviour harming the Wikipedia? JyotiTheLightHouse (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The place to complain about editor conduct is WP:ANI, but I would be remiss if I didn't tell you about the WP:BOOMERANG principle first. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:27, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not "illegal", because Wikipedia does not have courts or a judicial system. It is, however, one of the many AISIGNS from you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:29, 28 September 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.

Does Wikipedia Allow you?

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.

---

I'm sorry but it seemed pretty AI-generated to me. You can submit it to WP:AFC if you want someone else to review it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JyotiTheLightHouse (talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

This was copied from User talk:JyotiTheLightHouse § Devkund Math moved to draftspace, including my signature (which I have struck). ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:15, 28 September 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.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is c-JyotiTheLightHouse-20260927120000-Indiscriminate_and_Blind_Use_of_AI_Tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JyotiTheLightHouse (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 September 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.

Removal of my edit on Borubudur

I have just reverted your revert on what i did for the edits on Borbudur Article. I have been reading the guideline on this link, but it literally stated that i can use it as long i give sourced referenced and use for grammar correction. Why you remove it all and revert all the edit without checking if the content is coming from the source or just hallucination that came from the LLM.

1. Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the sources cited. I pasted what was written in the guideline to make you aware that the no LLM doesn't mean that all content is not allowed in wikipedia and the act of you revert all my edit is contraproductive for what we do for the spirit of wikipedia movement.

Agus Damanik (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't fragment conversations by both replying to me in § September 2026 on your talk page and also writing on my talk page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Removal of my edit on Shaira Rivera article

Removing all of my edit and assume that all of my edits are AI-Generated??? I spend whole night in my draft articles and supported it with citations and I can construct a sentence I don't need to use an AI in the edit that you removed. I thought you're using some tools to detect some AI-GENERATED edits but looks like you're just power tripping with some editors here. Checking your talk page guess what? I'm not wrong. Abskiee (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I used my own eyes to read your edits and my own brain to think about them. You are very clearly using AI for your edits, and that is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. You should read the WP:USED-AI? essay, remember that WP:LYING is under the WP:CIVIL policy. My advice is that you stop using AI on Wikipedia, because at this point I am worried that you will get yourself blocked if you continue. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

As per WP:LYING Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong. Which is you are, but based on your reply "I used my own eyes to read your edits and my own brain to think about them. You are very clearly using AI for your edits" you're blind judging me and some editors here. You're actions are clearly under WP:ICA because my edits in the article of Shaira Rivera I used my own words to that and didn't need any AI to construct those simple sentence. I thought its a nice of you to be worried in my part but looks like you didn't. Abskiee (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

DRAFT:JXCKYBOI

Hi G. I really appreciate your zeal in getting rid of slop on wp, but unless I'm missing something really important, I think you might have made a mistake here. Don't get me wrong, it is absolutely a correct refuse at AfC due to the sourcing. But there is no way this is AI, the spelling, grammar and punctuation errors are just not what LLMs do. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You know what, you're entirely correct. That's my bad, I'll go and fix it right away. Thanks for reaching out and letting me know. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

AI on Augmented Reality

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.

---

Most of the article was written before ChatGPT was released. What part of the article do you say is AI? I don't see it. Edmans3D (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That was explained in the tag, and I agree with the assessment that was provided there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is a casual, ultra-human draft for Edmans3D to send back—complete with the right amount of human energy:

Lol alright, my bad, let me just unplug my brain for a second.

Seriously though, that stuff was written back before all this ChatGPT madness even blew up.

Anyway, which specific part of the text actually looked robotic to you? I'm genuinely curious what part triggered the alarm bells. Edmans3D (talk) 14:42, 1 October 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.

Tacarigua, Nueva Esparta article

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 am writing regarding the proposed deletion tag on Tacarigua, Nueva Esparta. I would like to clarify the origin of this article and object to its deletion:

1. Translation Origin: The English article was created by user Wilfredor, who explicitly noted in the translation log that it was "translated and adapted from es:Tacarigua (Spanish Wikipedia)".

2. Author & Personal Verification: I am the author of the original Spanish Wikipedia article. The original text and historical details were personally reviewed, fact-checked, and verified for factual accuracy by Domingo Carrasquero, the official chronicler (cronista oficial) of Tacarigua.

3. Human Sourced & Verified: Since the content is a direct translation of a human-authored, historically verified Spanish article, it is not an unverified or hallucinated LLM text.

4. Notability: Tacarigua is a historic settlement in Nueva Esparta, Venezuela, connected with historical figures with well-established subject notability (Google Knowledge Graph ID: /g/120z1fn8).

I kindly ask you not to delete this article and take into concideration that original author probably used IA for translation.

Best regards, Artem Taranenko Тараненко Артем (talk) 15:11, 1 October 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.

Draft:Paraguachoa

As a note, it looks like you recently blocked the user that created this page from mainspace editing due to LLM usage. They are still repeatedly submitting blatant LLM drafts in AfC. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I haven't (and can't) blocked anyone. It was Newslinger who blocked the them after the WP:AIN § User:Тараненко Артем thread, and then reduced the block to a partial block from article space. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

...you know, there's an AELECT call for candidates right now. Maybr Sulfurboy just had a premonition of impending greatness! msk 21:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Clearly my red bull hadn't kicked in yet. Sorry for the confusion. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all. This should probably be brought up in the AIN thread, I can do it later unless you want to do it?

Did you get wings yet? ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

No, but it's something I'm considering. I haven't really sought out anyone to nominate me and would probably be too late to take part in the AELECT this time around, but might just go the RfA route sooner than later.

Also, I've made a note in the AIN, pinging Newslinger to it. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a mop, but if you do not currently have wings and that can of red bull you drank earlier was 12–24 years old (and bought in the US) then you may be owed a small settlement. :) ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Lmao, the wings reference was lost on me for some reason, I thought it was just another colloquial way of saying getting a mop. Anyways, new day, new red bull. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's not something that I've felt the need to seek out. My account may be old, but my biggest interest in Wikipedia has always been as a reader and it's only in the last few years that I've been actively contributing. It is also hard to know yourself if you are ready for a mop, that's something I believe is better judged by other experienced users. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

A Draft Request

Good morning, may I please humbly request that you review my draft article Draft:2-D (singer)? I would greatly appreciate your assistance! BakedintheHole (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I don't perform AfC reviews on request. If you think that this topic will interest me in some way, then by all means feel free to tell me about it. I see that you've submitted it for AfC for review, so someone will get to it. There are currently almost 3.000 drafts waiting for review, so this might take a little bit of time but you'll just have to be patient. The last time that I submitted a draft for review at AfC, it took about a week for someone to look at it and it was a very short article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I did actually take a quick look at your draft, @BakedintheHole. Could you tell me how you obtained the URL for reference nr. 14, how that source supports the claims that he is seen singing in nearly every Gorillaz music video and that he is even a credited artist on the Nathan Haines cover of Steely Dan's 'FM'? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Question - How to influence other editors to write a history of neutral point

Can you tell me how we can influence the editor to write about the article from a neutral perspective...

Many editors ignore the talk page for discussion and don't have the necessary sources . you giving me in talk page "the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups".What is it and what is its purpose? Kariama (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Could you clarify what tou mean?

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to edit topics that are related to WP:CASTE or social groups in South Asia until you have made 500 edits that are constructive over a period of no less than 30 days. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okayy .... I mean many people write uncessery lines which are not related with social group or not write as Wikipedia:NPOV

That's why I am asking this and separately you give me the talk page but I get confused what is this? Kariama (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

So that rule means that there are a few topic areas that you are not yet permitted to make edits in or participate in discussions about. Most relevant for you are probably Indian military history (WP:CT/SA/IMH) and South Asian social groups or castes (WP:CT/SA/CASTE). You can read more on the WP:ECREXPLAIN page. Once you have made 500 edits that are constructive and also edited for at least 30 days, then you will be permitted to made edits to these topic areas. Keep in mind that your editing has to be constructive and in good faith, making a lot of edits for the singular goal of being able to edit in these areas is called WP:GAMING and results in that privilege being revoked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I am working on the history and writing on my sandbox - it was incomplete, I will finish it soon. But the main problem I'm also facing is that a person with the same mindset WP:GAMING , writing for his own community showing them as dominating and targeting a community. The person you are complaining about was using the large language module , and that's who I'm talking about. I'm not naming him because they are now stalking my account for complaining about used large language module .

After the finsih , please check it once my sendbox . Kariama (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

About User:Powercycler, topic AI use

Good day gurkubondinn, can you keep an eye on the User:Powercycler? He was indefinitely blocked in the german Wikipedia for disrupting the AI project. He had edited and created articles using AI (he had a subpage listing the AI use (prompts?) for the edits he did on wikipedia articles.). It turned out that he hadn't actually read the sources suggested by the AI. He maintained subpages on how to edit Wikipedia artcles using AI. It's content violated the Wikipedia:AI guidelines. He is a proponent of using AI on Wikipedia.

I just want to warn because he was calling out in his block appealing that he will switch to the english Wikipedia (because of lighter rules of AI experiments?). Skranon (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this, @Skranon. Didn't find the time to look into this today (much of my time these days goes into my German classes funnily enough), but I should be able to get to it tomorrow. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

False AI flag.

Hi Gurkubondinn

I am asking you to please stop adding the AI generated content tag to the Venus Bay Victoria article. The tag is not correct as the edits I made to the article were not created using an AI or a large language model.

As I explained in your comment on my talk page the information came from an information night held at the Venus Bay Community Centre, where members of the community talked about the history of the bay tourism and updates, to pages including Wikipedia. We then. Added the information that was relevant.

If you think that a specific part of the article is AI generated please show me the part and tell me why you think that. Instead of adding an AI flag to the article many times. I would be happy to talk about this issue with you.

Thanks, Communityupdater2847 (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that all of it is AI-generated, and there is technical evidence associated with the edit. You should stop edit warring to remove maintenance tags, and you should not have started edit warring to restore the generated material either. I'm assuming that you controlled the TA that added the material in the first place, because you're talking like you did. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The content is not AI generated, if you believe you have evidence proving otherwise, please provide it so at the next community meeting we can review it, rather than blindly making assumptions. Considering multiple other people have raised concerns on your talk page about you incorrectly applying AI tags, it seems you have a pattern of false positives.

Once again, I am open to fixing issues you may have found. But none of the text was written by any AI. Communityupdater2847 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Read closer, those aren't false positives. But don't worry, I'll be opening an WP:AIN case later, you and you're welcome to explain the edits there. There are no "community meetings" on Wikipedia, everything is deal with onwiki and publicly. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done: WP:AIN § User:Communityupdater2847

‑‑gurkubondinn 15:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

October 2026 Administrator Elections – Discussion Phase

The discussion phase of the October 2026 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 8–12: Discussion phase (we are here)
• October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Discussion phase.

On 13 Oct, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not an LLM

hello, you reverted my edit on Axiom of choice that noted a credible claimed proof that the partition principle is independent of the axiom of choice; the edit was done with my human fingers, irrespective of the provenance of the result it documents.

it was a single extremely straightforward sentence, and I don't see how I could have written it at all differently to emphasise my humanity; I can provide evidence that I write in a much more whimsically prosaically humanific way in my writings under my OEIS userpage but suppressed that to conform to Wikipeditude

i would have appreciated you using the edit description box to tell me what caused you to suspect me of being an LLM, because levying an accusation for the first time (without clarification) in the process of acting upon it seems quite hostile and overly confident given your demonstrated false positive rate

i was banned from the OEIS for a year due to interfering edits in other users' draft slots, because i got frustrated with the rate at which my submissions were being reviewed, and i have since learned to be as respectful as possible towards things others have submitted as a matter of courtesy even when the substance of my feedback is critical and dismissive, and I would like to avoid you learning the same lesson as me the hard way

thank you; Drone Better (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC) Drone Better (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that you were an LLM, I said that you used an LLM. I should probably have mentioned this in the edit summary as well, but that source is not useable. You can't source stuff like to the same organisation making the claim. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on an edit

I recently created Draft:Dianne Martin (New Hampshire lawyer) by breaking it out from a lengthy block of text added to Gordon J. MacDonald in this massive edit., which added 135k to the article, increasing it in size by about ten times. On closer inspection, I am fairly certain that this entire addition is an LLM edit, replete with em-dashes and overwritten sentence constructions like

"In December 2017, Sununu and MacDonald announced a Department of Justice Civil Rights Unit and diversity advisory council to investigate and prosecute civil-rights violations and hate crimes, coordinate enforcement, and improve community outreach; the unit was later expanded as complaints rose", and

"New Hampshire also sued eight chemical manufacturers, including 3M and DuPont-related entities, in May 2019 over alleged statewide PFAS contamination, seeking investigation, remediation, treatment, monitoring, and natural-resource damages".

I feel that this is all rather unfortunate, as there appears to be a lot of accurate information in the expansion, including some substantial and noteworthy updates. BD2412 T 22:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

​Yep, maybe the most glaring sign is that the massive Diff/1367465103 was made three minutes after Diff/1367464890 was submitted by the same account to the same page. The passage that you quoted has WP:RO3, which is a fairly weak indicator (people can easily list things in threes, it just way more pervasive in LLM generated text).

Looking at the user account as a whole, Diff/1367414099 has what kind of maybe looks like a prompt/instructions but Diff/1367442620 looks more like someone's notes?

In revision Diff/1282497049 to User:Seraphim3/sandbox there is a reference that is titled with "Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump's Advisers Shared on Signal" and links to www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-signal-chat-yemen-strike/677793/, but it redirects to www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/03/teen-babysitters-intensive-parenting/677793/ with the title "Don’t Tell America the Babysitter’s Dead". You can change the year, month or title slug in the url and still get redirected to the same article, so f.ex. www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2026/10/foo-bar/677793/ will still redirect you to that article. It is only the numeric identifier at the end of the URL matters, so www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/03/teen-babysitters-intensive-parenting/677792/ (changed 677793 to 677792) will send you to a different article titled "Universities Have a Computer-Science Problem" instead.

The "Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump's Advisers Shared on Signal" article may even exist (I haven't checked), but it's not on that URL and that URL was not copied by someone that was actually reading the article. This is the sort of error that LLMs often make when predicting URLs, and its noticeable on websites where only a part of the URL actually matters.

And this is quite often the frustratic problem with AI users and edits, quite often the subject matter itself is interesting and important. But the output is not trustworthy (not do I particularly want to read an encyclopaedia that was generated by an algorithm). ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

About the ``` in the now deleted page Cyberpreneurship

@Gurkubondinn and Femke: The ``` at the bottom of this now deleted page is (as I far as I understand these things) a WP:MARKDOWN "artifact". Is this correct? Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

That is correct. There were some other non-technical indicators of llm usage too. The first source didn't use the wires cyberpreneurship for instance. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 09:56, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Sassa Magosuke

Hello user:Gurkubondinn, You declined my submitions for two drafts with the other one being Bekki Munetsune. I did not use AI to create them. I found them in Wikipedia of other languages and then translated them and submitted them. Johan Elijah (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

How did you translate them? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I used Google translate for the main content and in the infobox and i changed it a little bit for the English Wikipedia things like part_of, birth_place, etc. Johan Elijah (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

So there's a few issues here then. All of the requirements in the WP:LLMT guideline need to be met. You're are allowed to use AI to help you, not to do it for you, because WP:MACHINE translations are worse than no article at all. Google Translate uses an LLM, so these are effectively AI-generated. Do you have a deep understanding of both the English language and the source languages? ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:21, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I do not. Johan Elijah (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)