User talk:Gnomingstuff

If you are going to complain about AI here, don't.

Welcome!

Hello, Gnomingstuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been contributing to the French-language Wikipedia for over 10 years—soon to be 15 years. HenriDavel (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Gnomingstuff! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:38, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Corrected flagged issues

Thank you for your contribution.

On the maintenance tag: I’ve worked through the specific issues in the tag rationale. The infobox image placeholder is removed.

Evaluative statements that were in the article’s voice are now attributed to the cited authors eg the “pioneer of the movement of police reforms” characterisation to Fasihuddin, and the “only officer” distinction to the obituary.

Duplicate citations were consolidated and a malformed journal citation corrected. Promotional and redundant phrasing has been trimmed.

I’ve left the tag in place for your review rather than removing it myself. Happy to make further changes. Thanks Truealpha (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff ok to remove? Truealpha (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have time...

Hi, can you take a look at this article Pornography in India if you have time? I think it has some instances of superficial analysis, two instances of WP:AILIST, and undue emphasis on significance. But I'm not sure if I should put an AI tag there, so I thought I'd just leave this for you to decide since you seem to be better at this. Thanks. AdaCiccone (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Checkered Past (album), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phil Lewis was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Flag on Tisarana Buddhist Monastery

Hi, saw you flagged Tisarana Buddhist Monastery as potentially AI-generated. The content itself was not AI-generated, it was AI-reviewed and the correctness of the information was verified before publishing. However, I took the opportunity to rewrite most of the text, improving the flow and making the tone of the page more neutral. Can you have a look and remove the tag? Thanks Flavio Costa (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I took the opportunity to rewrite most of the text, improving the flow and making the tone of the page more neutral.

Not allowed. If you don't like the tag then don't use AI. Actually, don't use AI anyway, as it is not allowed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

WHat do you mean? I just rewrote most of the text, improving the flow and making the tone of the page more neutral. Using my own words, no AI input at all, as a correction to the issue you flagged. Flavio Costa (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If I can tell that it's AI writing just based on reading, then your "own words" are not sufficient rewriting. Write it yourself, with no AI involvement whatsoever. Our guidelines are not optional. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Challenge accepted, challenge completed - check again the text: same ideas, but fully rewritten from scratch, absolutely zero LLM, no spelling checks or any form of machine intervention in the content, 100% human. Flavio Costa (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Reta Keiha bio Wiki.

Kia Ora Gnomingstuff. I just wanted to clarify that the edit in question wasn’t AI-generated article content.

Ai for instance cannot generate the maps presented in the 1886 Kaiti Native lance court case.

I used AI to help reconstruct and revisd the wikitext as a coding/editing aid rather than to generate encyclopaedic prose or sources. Because I am not that great at that aspect of it.

The underlying content was based on the existing article and reliable sources, not purely AI-generated text.

I am a professional researcher and a member of the indigenous community to whom Reta Keiha belongs

Considering that I spent several hours ensuring that the page was accurate, and aligning it. I’m reversing your reversal accordingly because the content is supported by reliable cited source.

If you have concerns about the accuracy of any particular statement, I’d encourage you to check the sources cited in the article. If you identify a specific issue with the sourcing or wording, I’m happy to discuss it and make any necessary improvements.

Pai Mārire - Tanith Tanith.wirihana (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not an allowed use of AI, please review our guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

My use of AI was limited to assisting with the drafting and organisation of material that I had already researched from reliable sources. The factual content, citations and source selection were my own. I reviewed the output against the underlying sources and revised it before publishing.

Your changes will again be reversed. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Policy - Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what is asked of them and can change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited. Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.

Editors are permitted to use LLMs to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia, but must follow the guidance laid out at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation. Tanith.wirihana (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

"Assisting with the drafting" is not basic copyediting. Basic copyediting means things like spelling and capitalization. If I can tell upon reading your edit that it is AI, then it does not follow the guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

limited to assisting with the drafting

This is not allowed. I don't know what to tell you here. You are not an exception to the rules; either you follow the guidelines voluntarily, or you follow them involuntarily. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your efforts against AI-assisted writing (´▽`ʃ♡ƪ) — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 21:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Flagged Post for Artificial Intelligence

I do not make many edits, but the ones that I make do not use artificial intelligence. It seems others have had similar issues with you on this matter. What article are you referring to and by what metric are you measuring such claims?

I would recommend, in future, that you site which article it is that you believe uses artificial intelligence in the comments you leave on users pages. That would make these issues a lot less drawn out.

Thanks,

GG Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, comments on your edits are not comments on your character, and part of being an adult is learning not to take things like that personally. If I wanted to comment on your character, I would do that directly.

Second of all, the reason others have had similar issues with you on this matter is that, in most cases, they were using AI and don't like that I noticed that, so I'm not sure why you're waving that around as some kind of gotcha.

Anyway: Are you using tools such as Grammarly, DeepL, Quillbot, Microsoft's rewriting functionality, etc. to edit, proofread, rewrite, format, etc. content or to find sources? Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In long: I view AI as an insult to my character because I view it as an abhorrence upon humanity, and furthermore as a pale imitation of the peaks and troughs of human experience. To say that I use artificial intelligence is to question my very faith in humanity, and to question my ability to cogitate, cerebrate, and envisage. Your insistence upon “becoming an adult” is an insult itself, and adulthood is not a prerequisite to becoming a Wikipedia editor. However, I myself am an adult. I am not trying to catch you in a “gotcha,” I simply stated a fact. Others have had this issue. Does that frustrate you in and of itself? I made no comment on it. I made a recommendation and an observation, all for you to actually insult my character by implying I am less adult than you. Which, as an aside, I would never assume that you are or are not adult, nor would I imply a sense of moral superiority from such an assumption. I will not touch on that further, even though it is clearly in violation of the personal attacks section. For reference to the rules, see: No personal attacks -> What is considered to be a personal attack.

In short: No, I did not and do not use AI. Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You do not need me to lecture me about policy. You're free to view AI however you want, but your edits are not your personality. If you didn't use AI then there is no need to do anything except move on. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Please proceed to delete your comment off of my page, or make an edit stating that you were misinformed as to my usage of artificial intelligence.

Thanks,

GG Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It's your talk page, not mine. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yet you commented on it originally.

I would view it as a sign of good faith and a way to progress forward as neutral parties. Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A better way to progress forward is to stop spamming my talk page every 4 minutes and go about your own business. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted. I will place either screenshots or hyperlinks of this conversation under your original post. Gubernatorial Goober (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but -- for the second time -- stop spamming my talk page. I am trying to do work and I cannot do that when you leave pointless comments incessantly. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

AI Revert

Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted all of my edits to the LG Electronics page because you suspected they were AI-generated. I would like to clarify that I researched the content myself and wrote the additions in my own words.

Could you please identify the specific edits or passages that raised concerns? I am happy to review them, provide the supporting sources, and revise any wording that does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. Dimphillip (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Do it yourself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite and resolve this constructively. You are the one who reverted my edits because you suspected they werer AI-genreated, and I explained that i researched and wrote the material myself.

Since you made that judgment and reverted the edits on that basis, I think it is reasonable to ask what specifically led you to that conclusion. Tellimg me to "do it yourself" does not explain why you believed the edits were AI-genereated or identify what, if anything, was wrong with the content. Dimphillip (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Do it yourself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Helpful example

I was just looking for AI pages (my search term was "serves as a testament") when I found the page Blue Skied An' Clear. I think this might be a useful example for your AI-detection pages, because of this sentence:

In addition to serving as a showcase of the Morr Music roster, this release serves as a testament to the resurgence or revival of the shoegazing sound in this particular realm of electronica or IDM.

This feels stereotypically AI-generated on the surface, but it was added in 2021. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 21:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I keep a running list of "false positives" (the most recent one being FGF-2 internal ribosome entry site (IRES)) but I can add it to that, although pretty much everything on the false positives list has anti-tells (for instance with that one, syntactically though it's a little sprawling for AI-generated text, AI strongly tends to use "showcase" as a verb rather than a noun, none of the ubiquitous common tics of AI-generated album articles show up, etc.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

if you mean the quiz here, the examples there are chosen because they contain both search results that are unambiguously AI (ChatGPT params, etc) and search results that are common false positives (the Markdown example especially) so I'd have to see if anything there qualifies for that Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | August 2026 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with AUG26, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nabakrushna Choudhuri, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puri was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Lisa Emelia Svensson

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lisa Emelia Svensson, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • socvet.se https://web.archive.org/web/20250114115930/https://socvet.se/article/download/5135/4326/21057. Archived from the original on 2025-01-14. Retrieved 2025-04-15. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Wrong diff?

Hi Gnomingstuff, just checking if the link is correct here. Best, CMD (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed thanks Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Royal Society of Canada

Hi Gnomingstuff. Thank you so mcuh for your feedback! I replied on my own talk page on 15 July, but just realized it that doesn't notify you, so I'm trying again here. The edits I made to the RSC entry was reversed due to a possible AI use. I did use an AI tool to initially gather some sources before I wrote, so I can see why it got flagged, and I've now disclosed on the article talk page that I'm a member of the Society. If you have a minute, it would be really useful for me to know which parts appeared machine-written. I honestly can't tell, and I'd like to be able to to update; the motivation was to ensure transparency and accuracy about the Society, which was severely missing from the prior version. If there were other problems too, sourcing or tone or material that just doesn't belong, I'd rather hear it now than find out one revert at a time. Sorry for the fumbling. I don't edit here much. Igrossm (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated tag

Hi @Gnomingstuff, I saw the tag you added on the Double Infinity page about potential AI-generated text. I revised the section to make the wording more closely follow the cited sources and removed some interpretive phrasing. I also double-checked the supporting sources. When I first wrote the section, I used AI to help with formatting the citations, as I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's citation system. The article content itself was written by me based on the cited interviews and articles. I can provide exact quotes or source details if helpful. Please let me know if there are any remaining concerns. Modestblouse (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Your behavior

I found your edits going through an unrelated medical article, and I just want to say that some of your behavior is straight up WP:BITEy, if not otherwise extremely rude and disrespectful. This is the kind of behavior I'd take to WP:ANI and would rather not see from someone who wants to constructively improve WP. It gives me a bad taste in my mouth and makes me think that the entire WP:AICLEANUP team should not be hounding users and instead offer them opportunities to improve.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• The discouragement at the top of your talk page for others to discuss your editing behavior, and simply dismissing such criticism as "complaints."
• Your most recent behavior on Talk:Borderline personality disorder, in which you state that people who disagree with your views are "uninformed" and ad hominem attacking someone else's criticism of your behavior tagging pages by criticizing their grammar.
• Your outright refusal to help new users who wanted to know where exactly they had placed alleged AI-generated text, as seen multiple times on this very talk page (at "Specific feedback only, please" and "Cathy Caruth"). Directing them to shouty links with no explanation whatsoever is just plain rude, if not outright an assumption of bad faith.

wizzito | say hello! 18:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you want to take something to ANI, then do it. Don't use it as a vague threat.

As for the rest:

• It is not rude to call someone's complaints complaints, it is factually accurate. The rude behavior is the complaining.
• Similarly, it is not rude to call someone's uninformed views uninformed. It is factually accurate.
• People know whether they did or did not place AI-generated text. They do not need to be told what their own actions were. There is an essay going into this, because it turns out this is an extremely common deflection across the board and not some personal failing of mine.
• As for the last one, I was not criticizing grammar, I was criticizing the dehumanizing term "it," i.e., referring to me as a thing and not a person. I don't care whether people make grammatical mistakes, but I would like to be referred to with human pronouns.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who's being rude by treating any criticism of your actions as blanket "complaining." Just because you want to correct someone does not mean you need to be rude about it. And yes, people do (politely) need to be told what their own actions are, lest we suddenly hit them with WP:BRICKS. And the misuse of pronouns is indeed a grammatical error. wizzito | say hello! 21:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If someone sincerely needs to be told whether they, themselves, used AI in their own writing process then that is a WP:CIR issue, as people should not be contributing writing to Wikipedia if they do not know how it came into the world and/or do not have recall of their own actions.

The only time it is appropriate to call a person "it" is if they have directly said that "it" is their preferred pronoun. Otherwise, it is dehumanizing. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kashinagara, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puri was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Canadian Jesuit parish articles

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Gnomingstuff,

Thank you for reviewing the recent edits to the Canadian Jesuit parish articles. I am a Jesuit of Canada, so I recognize that I have a conflict of interest concerning these pages.

The purpose of the edits was to correct current institutional relationships and clergy assignments and to explain, without overstating it, what the parishes’ Jesuit identity means. I understand your concerns about promotional or AI-generated language.

Could you advise which factual changes might be appropriate if presented more concisely, supported by independent sources, and proposed through the articles’ talk pages? I would particularly like to ensure that the current Jesuit responsibility for these parishes and the names of their pastors are accurately recorded.

Thank you for your guidance. ~2026-42308-86 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't use AI to post comments either, or else they will not get answered. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes.

Hello and thanks for your many contributions to the project. In the future, I recommend discussing editor conduct on their user talk page rather than the pump. Czarking0 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I recommend not posting passive-aggressive messages on my talk page. As it turns out, I respect people's time and am not going to thrust useless pings upon them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Answers

About this question: Probably because it's easier to understand at a glance than the problems you name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Question about page restoration

Hi, which part of Michael Lawrie was LLM generated? I'm not that good at spotting this stuff. InfernoHues (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Have a look

Hi, could you take a look at this? Seems LLM-generated. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, apologies, a bit backlogged at the moment so not sure I can get to this in time Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand, Gurkubondinn took care of it though. I may contact you if the problem persists. Thanks for your attention. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Also filed it at AIN, so it should get dealt with sooner or later. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

False positive AI tag on Thermogenin edit Regarding HEAT Cycle

Hello Gnomingstuff,

Hope you are good I your health upon receiving this conversation.

I want to discuss or in fact reverse an edit you madein the page "Thermogenine" regarding HEAT Cycle. It seems it has been marked as AI edited, which it isn't. It was completely written by me. The work is part of my PhD Dissertation and also published in high ranked journals (Citations are included in the text). The publications are also cited by secondary research groups.

Further, initially it was considered as a separate topic, but wikipedia administrators asked me to integrate it into Thermogenine page, that I did later.

It is requested therefore to please reverse the flag of AI generated text and restore the edit regarding HEAT Cycle completely.

Thanks for your understanding. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Fascinating how this writing style is different from the excerpt in the article. Almost as if the article text was written by or with something else. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what does this means. My only concern is that as I have edited it and it's based on purely my work, I wrote it myself. I followed all the rules for citations, as there were few citation errors in start. Please un-flag the AI mark and make the HEAT Cycle work readable. Thanks. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I have edited it and it's based on purely my work

What do you mean "based on"? Is it or is it not your work? Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean that it is my original writing. It is based on the work presented in a peer reviewed research paper. I was first author of paper with many other authors. There are more than one papers published to support the work. Further, it is not copy-pasted. If you think some part does not sound good or against Wikipedia rules please let me know. I'd be happy to make changes. Thank you for your assistance. Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Gnomingstuff, have you please got time to remove the AI tag and made the editions regarding HEAT Cycle in Thermogenic page public? Further, also please guide me if at this point this term should have its own page?

Thanks for your attention.

Regards

Dr. Hammad Hammad mubeen1 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Organized Labour September Editing Event

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

An award for you!

		The Wikignome Award
		For your help with cleanup of archived discussions

In solidarity, Dafootballguy  (Want to talk?) 23:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi - I appreciate this but just a quick clarification, I'm not doing cleanup of archived discussions anymore because people told me to stop. I am keeping track of cleanup that should be done but that I am not allowed to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff I have been some cleanup. Is this a problem? In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 00:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the RfC. The outcome is ridiculous and there is vandalism in archives up to and including the literal N-word as a result. I tried. If only I had just been faster at the time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

(Saw your comment at VPR.) I think that's a crazy RfC too, but don't you think consensus that talk page archives can be edited to remove material that breaches policy at least gives you some breathing room to clean up blatant vandalism and the like? Evidently the community was divided about test edits and nonsense and so forth, but if you remove racial slurs and someone decides to revert you, I would...certainly be interested to hear their explanation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't really feel like relitigating this on my talk page, apologies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, I've at least removed everything in the first two categories on your list, so if people don't like that they can litigate it with me instead. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

sreved

what is "sreved"? Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Bored kittycat (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not template me. Template the person who accused people who have well-founded opinions about AI of acting out of "broad prejudice."

But of course you're not going to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, please leave your condescending exclamation points out of this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia." As if I haven't been here for years. "Here is Wikipedia's welcome page." Holy crap! There's a welcome page? Are you going to tell me how to make my first edit next? Unbelievable. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Please calm down. I did not write the UW template. Bored kittycat (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Then don't use it if you don't want to say the words in it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bored kittycat Please do not police talkpage discussions with twinkle in this manner. It leads to these WP:DNTTR issues. It is unclear from the page history why you reverted Gnomingstuff. I would very highly encourage leaving an edit summary in all cases of removing talkpage comments, from regular users or otherwise. CMD (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

List of Hilary duff songs page

hello,

I saw that you marked the "List of Songs Recorded by Hilary Duff" page as AI, and I'm trying to understand what about this page is cause for concern. I've been a huge fan of hers for 22 years and am very familiar with her entire library of music. With that said, Im very confused as to what portion of this page you believe is AI. There might be some weak references and I'm happy to fix that, but as far as AI goes, this is innaccurate. I'm a bit if a perfectionist and have worded sections and footnotes to make the sections and information as clear as possible as she has music not just from albums and singles but also music that originates elsewhere as well. Can you please help me understand what portions of this page you believe are AI so I can tackle and reword as necessary? Thanks! PokeDuff87 (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Why are you asking me whether you used AI? You don't need someone else to tell you, unless you literally have no recollection of your own actions. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I know I didn't use AI to write this article. I wrote every part of this article on my own, or rewrote/added to existing parts of this article that has existed since 2014. However, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. I'm happy to rewrite the non-list sections of the article.

I also didn't ask you IF I used AI, I asked you what portions of the article you deem to be AI generated. I've been heavily editing this article since before Hilary's most recent album came out in February, as this has been a passion project of mine. I don't appreciate being falsely accused of using AI when I detest it myself. PokeDuff87 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I've put in for a Third Opinion request regarding this AI maintenance tag on the List of Songs Recorded by Hilary Duff" Article. Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements PokeDuff87 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Good. Now please stop spamming my talk page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The AI Cleanup Barnstar
	Gnomingstuff, did you know that you are currently one of the most prolific participants on the AI noticeboard? (I'm sure you did.) Thank you for all of the time and effort you have dedicated to protecting the integrity of content and discussions on Wikipedia by responding to reports of LLM misuse. — Newslinger talk 16:23, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIN thread

I was slightly hurt by your response at the AIN thread. I was not impugning your particular AI detector, but trying to shift focus away from whether or not the edits were necessarily AI. I just spent about an hour drafting a user essay on avoiding making unnecessary AI accusations, in part because of my own experiences at making such accusations, but also because of various threads I've seen at WP:AFCHD, several user talk pages, and WP:ANI. But I admit, the inciting event was that thread, including your behavior in it. I apologize if I hurt you with my comment earlier, and I hope we can focus on improving Wikipedia as a community. I struggled for like 5 minutes trying to think of how to end this message and that's the best I got lol guninvalid (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I also found it amusing that you cited a paper I had read several times while researching AI detection. I did a double take after reading the article title because it looked familiar and I immediately recognized the authors I definitely want to believe that Russel, Karpinska, and Iyyer are onto something, because I did read a couple papers that showed that humans are bad AI detectors, and while I accept that this is true in aggregate, those papers didn't do a good job investigating why humans are bad AI detectors. Russel, Karpinska, and Iyyer were actually able to determine that AI users are good detectors of AI usage... in aggregate. In fact, the majority vote out of their regular users of AI was right in 299 out of 300 cases, even including "humanized" AI text. There was one other paper I read whose authors escape me right now. Unfortunately, Russel, Karpinska, and Iyyer only had 5 experimental subjects and I would love to replicate their results on a larger scale... but their research costed nearly 5 grand paying them and I'm not convinced I'm getting a grant anytime soon... guninvalid (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies.

I don't use AI detectors for most of the work, as I've mentioned here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consistent fake assumption of using AI without providing valid reasons. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 21:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

LLM Copy editing

It seemed like your comment...

As seen above, there was an attempt to undermine the guideline by carving out an exception for "copyediting" (defined so broadly you could fit any edit into there)

... was directed at me. My intent was to understand the guideline. When it became clear that the community didn't really want to allow Copy editing, as most written definitions define it, I helped change the guideline to make it more narrow. My primary goal is clarity. Thanks for reading this and thanks for your slop-fighting. Dw31415 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I updated the essay to match. Dw31415 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Tagging pages

I'm curious why you continue to tag pages without taking action, even after anti-LLM policies allow you to revert or request deletion. I recently came across Jiri-Makru_Wildlife_Sanctuary, a page which you had tagged in August 2026. The page had no significant human edits, and I instantly PRODDED it (normal, not LLMPROD).

I appreciate your contributions, but there are already 855 articles in the tag queue for this month, and contiuing with the tagging only increases this. I've also seen many cases in which the AI edit could have been easily reverted, and a history check would have caught this. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 23:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it is literally impossible to satisfy everyone. People complain if you tag articles. People complain if you revert articles. People complain if you delete articles. There is no action one can take that will not result in people complaining at me.

If you are upset about there being 855 articles in the tag queue take it up with the people adding the AI-generated content, instead of increasing the amount of complaints in the complaint queue for this month. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you’ve reported me for AI use,

Know that Grammarly and LLMs are not the same. Wikipedia is full of slop needing copyediting. In complaining about the use of contemporary copyediting software, Wikipedia ends up no better. J F-T (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Grammarly has been LLM-based for several years, and for that reason it is specifically disallowed. If you don't like Wikipedia's guidelines you are free to either attempt to get them changed or to leave. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Have you ever seen an IP revert cleanup edits and add back a PROD before?

You don't think that was suspicious at all? So it was just a random person who just randomly clicked on the first article linked in that specific ANI thread and reverted my cleanup edits. That's makes no sense.

And how does me being slightly paranoid about a weird targeted editing against me have anything to do with my ability to edit tagged articles appropriately, which a TBan will impede.

For that to be your justification reads very vindictive and not at all relevant. You aren't judging if I'm a great bloke, you should only be looking at my editing. The-Pope (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you took this to my talk page instead of the actual thread itself? Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with the ANI issue. The-Pope (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Query for PB article edit

Dear Gnomingstuff, I undertook edits to the Philip Beesley page (closely associated with me) that I thought were good contributions and note that they have been deemed AI- can I ask for your help in guiding me on how I can qualify/improve the edits so that they can stand? I composed them myself, and I respect the care that you and Wikipedia colleagues are giving to keep this all clear of the automated erosion. With thanks Pataphasis

~2026-44603-15 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Gnomingstuff, I would appreciate dialogue to help fix this- my edits were written by me personally and were not AI generated. They seem to fit all Wikipedia regulations and guidelines and were provided as a contribution to the Wikipedia project. How can they be restored?

thanks Pataphasis Pataphasis (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Beesley Pataphasis (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

2O

Some of the material in this article is flat out wrong, so I WWT and saw it was added by a blocked UPE editor in 2025 -- which basically sets my AI spidey senses going. Free for a second opinion on text added in this: ? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

That user's first unblock request is LLM-generated, if that tells you anything. Weird topic for UPE though, but what do I know. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Nothing really leaping out either direction but seems possible Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Valeriu Georgescu

Hello, I hope everything is well.

The links in this article don’t work cause I had no idea to copy stuff from Jstor so I just cited manually. Everything was copied from word, Scribe, or Sandbox cause I kept lagging and I would lose sandbox data when my I-Pad would crash.

The link rot may be cause I’d try to use search parameters and what not and I wouldn’t know how to cite them properly cause I was overseas and had a bad device then. The J-Stor stuff and the pdfs should add up with what is said in the articles because I read them and if you could offer any assistance in making it seem like I didn’t read with one eye open, it would be good.

Anything else should be good though. I did not use any llm to generate all this and I tried my best to not keep it like a resume since that was a big reason past versions of article were rejected - for sounding like apparent resumes to to speak.

Thank you, Vasile Arsenie VasileArsenie (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff, I think it is very plausible that Valeriu Georgescu is LLM-generated. But I am confused by your edit, since your edit summary says that it is a revert back to the pre-AI version of the page, whereas in fact your edit does not do anything except remove the maintenance tag that I added before. If this article is LLM-generated, it is presumably LLM-generated from the very first edit. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The references all match up however, pasting something from Word and Sandbox when typing doesn’t mean I used LLMs VasileArsenie (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Why is it that the link in reference 7 does not work? Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 23:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

https://repository.digital.georgetown.edu/downloads/dd888571-711c-4fb5-b5d7-b96e8de5c659 According to page 22, it was once a link but it’s now dead. I thought it might work for other people or an internet archive thing can be found for it. I wrote this biography in like mid July and it got approved late August VasileArsenie (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I can see that the same link is cited on this page in the link immediately below the "DOCUMENT 1" heading, but that and other similar links further down the page do not work. So actually I think that it's clear that this was originally a valid link, and so the issue with this link (which I think is the only one in the references to this article that doesn't work) is not evidence of LLM use. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 23:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, though, the link on p. 22 of the document you cite is not the same as the link used in reference 7 of your article. Where did you get the specific version of the link that you actually used in that reference from? Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 01:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi -- would it be possible to move this discussion to the article's talk page rather than here? Thanks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Images of appreciation

Hi. We met on the AI noticeboard, and may have gotten off on the wrong foot. I would like to show that, much as we may have disagreed on one issue, I do appreciate your work in general. So, I found, uploaded, and added some free licensed images to some of the articles that you list on your user page that didn't have any. I do that at times. Hope you like.

• 
  Be-By and the Things He Did by Agnes Grozier Herbertson
• 
  Tinkler Johnny by Agnes Grozier Herbertson
• 
  Killer's Head
• 
  Hote' Casella
• 
  Agnes Grozier Herbertson

--GRuban (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! (A lot of these I totally forgot creating.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

. Now about that AI thing. I can now see the LLM notes on Joo Ho-jin, and the author is explaining those issues, and it seems that'll be resolved. But I don't see why Park Chung-seop is "blatantly AI-generated", and the author is saying they didn't use anything AI for that. Can you explain why you believe otherwise? Here, there, article talk, where ever you think would be best. This isn't a "teach your grandmother to suck eggs" thing, this is a "Dearest grandmother, here is an egg and a pin, but it's just not working; could you share your hard-earned wisdom?" thing. --GRuban (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean just go down WP:AISIGNS, we've got 2024-25 AIVOCAB density, is/are avoidance, AIATTR, everything has to highlight or emphasize or reflect something (these sort of constructions are ubiquitous in AI-generated entertainment writing but uncommon to nonexistent in entertainment writing prior to 2023). Plus, well, we know ChatGPT is being used, the text has ChatGPT hallmarks, WP:DUCK has to apply at a given point.

To be clear I think this is likely edited by AI and not fully generated by AI (there are some patches in the original version that do not appear to be touched by AI), or perhaps source summarization by AI is being inserted into the text, but it has every hallmark of AI text about entertainment subjects. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you --GRuban (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Trisam Prison moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Trisam Prison. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because 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}) 23:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

wrong person Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! I miss-clicked and had it notify all contributors, not just the creator. My bad. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Himiko

Why did you remove the biography section on Himiko. The current version of the article reads like a collection of historical references than a biography. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Because AI-generated content, which the content I removed was, is not allowed on Wikipedia. "A collection of historical references" is better than any AI slop. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff but now the article reads like it was written by some Japanese fascist.

Himiko is a real historical person and now the article acts like her existence is debated. CycoMa2 (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Then write a biography without AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff do you have proof users were using AI to write this? CycoMa2 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

No, but I have proof that you are continuing to spam my talk page even after I told you to stop. I have things to do that are not being complained at by people who do not accept Wikipedia's guidelines. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Reinstate changes

I spent all day working on the page for 2 Kings 2, and I spent months on 2 Samuel. I understand you have a personal vendetta against generative AI. Fine—everyone's entitled to his opinion (though I certainly don't share yours). That said, any AI use on my part is not for content generation but content development: source-checking, source-finding, text correction, and the like. I would imagine you don't be likely to reinstate my revisions—all of which were needed—so I will raise a dispute. J F-T (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow AI-generated content, including "text correction." It doesn't matter how long you spent on it; it is not wanted here, and you should have read Wikipedia's guidelines beforehand. Let that be a lesson for the future. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you added the template about possible AI text in the melatonin page, but didn't add a reason nor pointed to the specific part(s) of the text that you suspect of being AI-generated. It would be best if you do so, otherwise there's no way to improve/correct the affected parts ~2026-54296-35 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

This is clearly pointed out on the talk page, please take a minimum of 30 seconds to do the most basic of reading before spamming my talk page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Potential LLM writing

Hello, Gnomingstuff! I saw your 9/30 reversion of WallyTV's edits at Peavey EVH Wolfgang over LLM concerns. Since then, WallyTV has done a major rewrite that introduced the strange tendency to put paragraph breaks after every sentence - which puzzles me. I also saw that you reverted a similar rewrite that introduced this same formatting issue at Peavey 5150 over AI writing. Do you think this new rewrite on the Wolfgang article is AI generated? Is there a Wiki tool we can use that helps verify content? Thanks! Mbinebri (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

All of their edits are AI-generated. They have said so on their talk page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)