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)

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)

User Itsekiriwriting reverted your edits

on this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Itsekiri_people&action=history

After you removed their version for including potential ai writing, he/she went back to just revert it. I dont think this user is interested in dialogue or weighing of sources here but whatever their ideals are. This user is also making disruptive edits on other articles though have been warned on the behaviour. Dolpina (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Gnomingstuff. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The page of "Mahmoud Ghorbani"

You removed the complete page of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ghorbani&oldid=1377225349, because it looks that it was created or edited by AI?! which was not. PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your talk page and respond there, not here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Ekpeye People

Hello Gnomingstuff, I saw your reverted edit on the above cited article. Could you explain why please? Umasoyee (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

AI is not allowed on Wikipedia. No amount of complaining about this will change that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Gnomingstuff for catching my mistake on this article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:46, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Under The Rug (band) AI flag

Hi @Gnomingstuff,

I addressed this claim by taking out descriptive sentences and leaving just barebones details about the band. I hope this is enough to remove the tag, but wanted to check with you first.

Thanks so much. Seanbc26

Seanbc26 (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

RM of Gull Lake

I am so sorry to bother you, but if you have a second, could you take a look at this edit? Your AI sense is far better than mine. I think it might be AI because of the extra spaces after sections (like it was copy pasted onto wikipedia), how items are grouped in threes, and the unnatural feel to the writing. Again, sorry to bother you. Masterhatch (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Could be, could not be, hard to say Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look. Masterhatch (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles November 2026 backlog drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 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 NOV26, 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) 07:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Uri J. Nachimson

Hi, I see you tagged Uri J. Nachimson as AI. I was the AfC reviewer who accepted that draft, and I didn't see a problem with it. Can you help me understand why you thought this was from a LLM? Personally, I see AI as a major problem and I'm struggling to know how to deal with it, so I am grateful for your diligence here. Doric Loon (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure. The sign mentioned is WP:AIATTR, please read that section first so we are on the same page.

Like many of the signs mentioned there, AIATTR tends to present differently over time as new chatbot models tools come out and gain/lose popularity. The two rough "eras" for AIATTR are 2025-mid-2026 and mid-2026 on (it didn't really show up before 2025), and the two big expansions to the article happen to fall into those two timeframes:

• Version 1 is from January 2026, in Special:Diff/1334094057, and that's where we see textbook era 1 AIATTR: Nachimson’s work has been discussed in independent Polish and Italian media, The book has received coverage in Polish and Italian newspapers, the subject of reviews and interviews in Italian cultural journals. It's not just the mention of media coverage but the hyperfocus on itemizing the coverage and classifying them as regional, independent, Polish-language etc., as if they are trying to play to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and do a quasi-source review in the article prose itself. There are other indicators in this edit, but this is the main one here (which it often is during this time frame).
• The major rewrite is July 2026, in Special:Diff/1362665382 (a TA who has only edited this draft, not going to speculate further since that's beside the point). This is around when you stop seeing the "covered by media outlets" AIATTR pattern as often, but when you start getting the second variant: extremely pedantic itemization of databases/records/gazettes listing, identifying, etc. the article subject, using those specific words. This edit is short and much of it is a rewrite, so there's not room for many of these -- whole-cloth articles can have dozens -- but there's a very characteristic instance, [...] are listed among the sources of the Warsaw Ghetto database. The database identifies Lilly's Album as a work [...].

Note how variant #1 does not show up in the June 2026 edit (not counting the old paragraphs that got moved) and variant #2 does not show up in the January 2026 edit; that's very common. They're not hard cutoffs, but the drop-off is fast. With this one , it's recent enough that I remember I finding the article while searching for variant #2, scanned the text, thought "ok, the covered in media part was probably added earlier," and sure enough it was. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

more examples of the patterns from drafts confirmed as AI due to stuff like WP:OAICITE:

1. Leech has been cited as an expert source on prisons by national and regional media., Independent profiles have described Leech’s work Keshta’s work has received coverage in Egyptian and regional media, and this one that just says the quiet part out loud: has been covered in multiple independent community media sources. Coverage of the award documents its nomination, finalist, and winner stages, demonstrating that the recognition is part of a notable, independently verified initiative.
2. Pattern 2 I have less confirmed examples of since it's been around less long, but The UN Global Compact participant database identifies BlackCamel Energy Ltd as a Nigerian small or medium-sized enterprise operating in the forestry sector [...], A 2021 commentary on geochemical data infrastructure discussed GEOROC alongside PetDB and NAVDAT. It identified[...], etc.

Basically, this stuff is extremely formulaic, way more than people think, and the formulas don't show up nearly as often either in human writing or even in AI-generated writing from other time periods. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very enlightening indeed, and will inform my AfC work in future. As far as this case is concerned, the question now is, what do we do about it? If the sources are as good as they look at first glance, a rewrite should be possible, but it would be quite a bit of work. I'm not sure I would want to invest that much time in this particular article. Doric Loon (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi @Gnomingstuff. I wasn’t sure how to go about this, as I’m trying to not to canvass amid the active AfD the two of us are involved in, but given your participation at the ANI discussion, I’d appreciate your taking a look at the AfD as it’s progressed since that section’s closure. If you think other editors should be made aware as well to alleviate neutrality concerns, I’d be happy to do so, but I wasn’t sure what to do since the section’s already been closed out.

I’ve tried to remain civil in this discussion, but I’m admittedly getting extremely frustrated with this treatment, which ironically feels like it’s making use of the discussion as a forum to rehash that debate. I’d let it go but I’m also not of the mind to allow someone to use ad hominem as a debate tactic and get away with it, since I’d asked to no avail that other involved editors take my place. My thanks in advance, and all the best.

CSGinger14 (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Not really sure I have much to say here, I didn't participate in that AfD at all; also I mostly do AI cleanup and that article isn't AI (no substantive edits since 2022) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

SdHb

Hi Gnomingstuff, hope all's well. I think you're aware of this as well since you have tagged several of their additions as LLM generated , but SdHb has been adding huge amounts of content into main space on weekly basis and despite them denying its use, much of it does show signs of use of LLM. I have tried to cleanup some of it but honestly there's too much. Can you please assist in this regard, or open discussion regarding SdHb's content dump at WP:AINB? Sutyarashi (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi -- the best place for this would be AINB; it just got a new form wizard for submitting so you'd just have to put in their name and then basically what you just said here into the form Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

not sure if you saw this so made a filing Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Sticktoitiveness Barnstar
	Just a quick look through your talk page shows that you manage to deal with a lot of incivility while keeping a level head. You deserve this. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

About the bukit indah article.

Can we at least revert that llm version, and edit it a bit to adopt it?

the bukit Indah article tends to be written like an advertisement, or have too much emphasis on the shopping part, when it is actually a residential town.

the llm version actually solves that, and make the article more like a HDB Wikipedia article.

don’t just revert just cuz it is llm. How about revert it, and edit it such that it is not llm? ~2026-56971-44 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Page update to ensure Wikipedia compliance

Hi Gnomingstuff,

I noticed that you added an AI-generated content tag to the Muscular Dystrophy Association article following edits from user Emausmora.

I’ve completed a detailed review of the disputed additions to verify factual accuracy, source compliance (WP:V), and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). I posted specific edit requests on the article Talk page under the section "COI: Page cleanup to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines."

When you have a moment, could you please take a look at the proposed revisions to see if they address the concerns noted in the tag?

Thanks for your help! TheBlueOwl (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't use AI to post comments either. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

RE: October 2026

Hi, I would like to address the message left on my talk page regarding an article List of decommissioned ships of the Polish Navy was created by AI. On what basis is this claim made, or why did the filter flag it as such? I published the same content split into two separate articles on the Polish Wikipedia, where I manually created the tables and added the sources. For this version, I translated those two articles and transferred the code directly from the Polish Wikipedia to the English one. There are some differences, as the syntax for code varies between the Polish and English Wikipedia.

However, I did not use AI to generate the text, and in my view, there is nothing that needs correcting aside from a few transcription errors where I carried over the Polish transliterated names of Russian ship projects instead of using the standard English transliteration. For example, I used "Wodoriez type" - in Poland, these ships are known by the name "Wodoriez," but on the English Wikipedia, it should be transliterated as "Vodoriez." Similarly, there is an article on the English Wikipedia for the Filin-class guard ship a term that is virtually never used in my part of Europe; that was my mistake.

To be clear, the text itself was not generated by AI. Could you please explain the basis for this conclusion? Alternatively, we could submit the text for review by a military themed Wikiproject on the English Wikipedia. It is quite frustrating to spend a significant amount of time translating and transferring an extensive text, only for it to be flagged as AI generated without any specific explanation or indication as to why, or which parts are supposedly problematic. Polskiarmator123 (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

So how did your chatbot's comments end up in the source code then? I don't appreciate being lied to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The comment was just a personal note I forgot to remove. When working with tables and source code, I use external editors rather than Wikipedia’s built-in editor because the code is easier to read and work with. I sometimes leave notes for myself while editing, and this one slipped through by mistake.

In any case, I have removed my internal notes such as "Convert and restore the inline citations from the supplied pre-1947 source before publication" and i repair "url-status=bot: unknown" errors created when i use tool for creating automatic citations on Wiki. Therefore, please remove the template. Polskiarmator123 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

What a coincidence that your "personal notes" are worded exactly like the notes that chatbots generate, and not like comments that existed on Wikipedia prior to that. Again, I do not appreciate being lied to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems we won’t reach any agreement; we both have our own firm views. The only automated tool I use is a translator. An error occurred due to the automated translation because I wasn't careful enough to check what I had posted. I have removed the point of contention, so I am asking once again that the template be removed, as the error in the text has been corrected. Polskiarmator123 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

And please don’t get me wrong, because I have no intention of lying to you, and I respect the work you do. However, I know perfectly well how this text was created, and it wasn’t generated by any chatbots. So I had to stand by what I say Polskiarmator123 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't think we've interacted much, but I've seen what you do (and advocate for) re AI cleanup, and just wanted to stop by and say thanks. Your expertise and edits are going to be more and more valuable as the tide of AI rises. What you're doing is raising awareness and helping to teach others how to do what you do. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Third Opinion Requested

Greetings, I've requested a third opinion regarding the Hendrik Dirk Kruseman van Elten article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hendrik_Dirk_Kruseman_van_Elten Central Logic (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Pinging

Hi. I've noticed you saying you don't like to be pinged. Are you aware that you can turn off pings at your end? Go to Preferences/Notifications and uncheck the "Mention" box, i.e. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I was already aware of this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated in Marc Tawil

Hello Gnomingstuff. I noticed that you added the notice stating that this article appears to incorporate text generated by a large language model. I would appreciate it if you could provide some further information about the specific aspects of the article that led you to this conclusion. The article was developed through extensive original research conducted by me in Portuguese, drawing on sources and information gathered during that process. I did use artificial intelligence as an aid to review the English translation, but the article's content was not generated by an AI tool. The research, selection of information, structure, and writing were my own work. I fully understand the importance of Wikipedia's policies regarding AI-generated content, and I am willing to make any necessary improvements to ensure that the article meets the community's standards. However, I would appreciate some guidance on which passages or characteristics raised your concerns, so I can address them appropriately. Thank you for your time. I appreciate any feedback you can provide. Best regards, Lucashempa (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Don't use AI to post on my talk page either. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

My friend, I use it to review the translation of the text. Is there any problem with that? Lucashempa (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Please be less of a jerk to people

I can see from your talk page that you don't appreciate templated civility warnings, so I'm handwriting this message to you. I've noticed you're a jerk to people too often (IMO) and in situations where it's really unfounded (IMO). Two recent examples on my watchlist:

It's very possible to not use spell check. The way to do that is to learn to spell. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You can't possibly be unaware of, e.g., dyslexia, or non-native English speakers, or all the various types of people in the world who might for various reasons, many entirely outside their control, need the assistance of a computer spellchecker. This kind of comment can make those people feel like shit. It'd be cool if we didn't say things like that.

Support, and I note that the arguments here are breaking down into "it's already a policy in effect so it should also be one in name" and "why are these big meanies saying I can't use AI :( :( :(" Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

That's not a respectful way of interacting with other people. Of course, people might disagree about whether a rule should be a policy or a guideline, or any manner of other things, but that comments is the verbal equivalent of just throwing shit at somebody. Again, it makes people feel shitty. It'd be cool if you did that less. That second comment is particularly ironic given this comment:

once again we have an example of WP:AGF not applying when it comes to AI cleanup, people can just say whatever shit they want Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

You made that third comment three minutes after the second one. Like in one comment, you throw at people on the other side, and minutes later, you bemoan a lack of AGF for people on your side. It's almost like you're acting out some kind of online parody: in other words, are you actually trolling us? Whatever the reason, cut it out, huh? Levivich (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about being respectful then respect my time and leave me alone. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I’ve noticed a lot of comments from you saying “don’t spam pings” after someone has done the usual practice of pinging you once. You are aware that you can turn off notifications in your settings? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this. Other people seem unaware that they can just leave me alone. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

My position is that they don't get to moan about being pinged until they put "don't ping on reply" or similar in their sig lol Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:24, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if I could go five minutes in peace Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Why is it so agonizing to you to follow a request by other people that you change your behavior in this one limited activity (editing Wikipedia), and thus demonstrate basic respect for other human beings, rather than dig in your heels and go "na na na na na hahah you can't make me, I don't care what you think, I do what I want"? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

So I'm asking you to change your behavior in this one limited activity (editing Wikipedia). Thanks. Levivich (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Please for the love of god please please I am begging you please leave me alone Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I know you don't want to hear this, but if you don't sooner or later someone will take you to ANI, and you will get sanctioned. You do essential work, but it won't excuse civility incidents forever and this is a becoming a pattern with you, across topic areas.

Please, try to tone it down a little. I know you don't want a discussion here, so I won't comment on this further. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

If you knew I didn’t want a discussion why did you start one anyway? The sealioning is unbelievable Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2026 (UTC)