User talk:Pythoncoder

Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after your message.

This talk page is an AI-free zone! Comments that appear to be generated by ChatGPT or another large language model will be ignored. Repeated AI use may result in loss of editing privileges.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pythoncoder.

On the subject of FETCH, I'm totally down to write a WP:FETCH essay. Or WP:MAKEFETCHHAPPEN iguess. guninvalid (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you declined my page Draft:Avi Hiaeve. I was wondering if you have any tips on how to improve it? I referenced a huge collection of independent sources that are not affiliated with the page's subject, so I am not sure how else I would show that this subject is notable? Also, do you have any suggestions on how to make it read more neutrally or any specific language that was not neutral? I would really appreciate any help and suggestions. Thank you! ~2025-31257-19 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I wasn't logged into my account! Signing off correctly here QBlais (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey pythoncoder... Noticed you left a comment on Draft:The Final Fix here. " Comment: This appears to be a controversial subject, so it is important that it follows NPOV and FRINGE." You are absolutely correct; the subject of the film is certainly that, however this article is just for the movie, which absolutely exists and gained a good amount of notoriety, and was narrated by a notable celebrity. I have maintained a completely neutral tone here. The subject of the movie itself shouldn't be the issue. I will personally argue that it's now no longer considered fringe, because the subject of the movie just received FDA approval. Gaining mainstream acceptance after a 50+ year uphill battle against big pharma is no easy feat, but again, the context of this discussion is that this is an article for the movie. I have no affiliation to the film. It was an independent production. OpiateFreedom (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your revisions made the entry for this museum less accurate and more incomplete. By my describing the purpose, contents, and history of the museum, you misinterpreted it as "promotional." I provided a source for my content revisions. I even borrowed my formatting and some wordage from entries for other regional museums! You are doing your readers a disservice by removing my content for this museum. I hope you will review and reconsider. ~2025-39196-08 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. They are of great help. I assumed that naming the media outlets in the sections was necessary to make the references verifiable. I appreciate the clarification about letting the citations speak for themselves.

I’m still learning how to write in the style for Wikipedia, and your comments are very helpful. I will go through the article this weekend and make the changes needed.

— Tim Smith MoebiusTim (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contributions to the draft I started! I believe the previous reviewer was referring to the fact that I forgot to cite some content properly, which I planned to do later but forgot (e.g. Trilogy), and one of the arcade games relied solely on primary sources. I would've resolved this much quicker, but you just so happened to edit the draft at the same time that I did. No worries, I should've put an in use template beforehand, so that's my bad. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 21:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, that’s a situation where the reviewer probably should have left a comment explaining the decline, since it’s not self-evident. Oh well. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Python Coder,

Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia clean and reliable. I have updated the Draft to read in a more neutral tone. This perfumer has been featured in several major publications including Maximm, Retail Insider, Sharp Magazine, and Canadian Living. They are also mentioned on this Wikpiedia list of perfumes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_perfumes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michel_Germain — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJHuxley (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CJHuxley Please read the “distribution and retail” section again and tell me: what’s wrong with this picture? (Also, in the future, please type ~~~~ after your post, instead of in the edit summary.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at my submission. I wanted to ask if there are specific sections, sentences, or sources that you think should be improved?

I will disclose that AI was used to generate large portions of the article, but the article was hand-edited by me afterwards. If it needs a fresh rewrite due to the usage of AI, that is acceptable. Some direction will help a lot. Awakeralex (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your honesty regarding your LLM use. Wikipedia’s current LLM guideline reads: “Large language models should not be used to generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch.” As such, I advise that you scrap the current draft and write a new one yourself. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanaulhaqqazi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jehan Alam Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

kindly publish the article as it is for general information.

Sanaulhaqqazi (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pythoncoder,

I hope you're well! I have restarted from scratch and only used Verifiable sources and got rid of all the weak ones and would like for your feedback on it please. Thank you! Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it still AI-generated? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you let me how it's still Ai? As I've tried to make it sound more neutral and most of the rephrasing is from what I researched in the sources. Thank you! Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the signs of LLM use are more subtle this time around, there are parts that were newly added, like this:

...that still have the classic "LLM misunderstanding how you're supposed to write a Wikipedia article" writing style. Are you sure that you wrote this text without any LLM assistance? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, it does come across as LLM sounding so again I've reworded it again and have also taken out the WordPress article as I feel like thats also a weak source. Please let me know if I'm wrong, Thanks. Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pythoncoder,

I was just wondering if my draft is all correct now and if anything needs to be changed, please let me know. Thank you and Happy Christmas! Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi see my draft sachin lokapure Meta34552 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the publication of this content (Draft:Institute of Advanced Radiosurgery (IRCA)) I requested on Wikipedia has been declined. It indicates that it doesn't adopt a neutral point of view, but it can be verified that the page describes a scientific treatment for ailments of different types. At no point is it presented in a promotional manner, and everything is supported by news reports. It's true that many references are in Spanish, but international media coverage hasn't been extensive. I request that someone please review it thoroughly and, if there is indeed something incorrectly stated, please let me know so I can make the necessary changes. Thank you! Hassna Baker (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hassna Baker I disagree with your claim that there is no promotional writing in the article. For example, “ the system enables radiation to be delivered through 16,200 potential beam paths” sounds like it was taken from ad copy. If you want another opinion, you can ask at WP:AFCHD. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. Okay, I understand. It wasn't something I did to look like an advertisement; it was information related to that technology, but looking at it this way, you're right. I'll try to improve the content. Thanks for your help! Hassna Baker (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this my self. I did previously use grammarly for word choice. However I have restarted from the version prior to that and made my own word choices.

Can you please review the page?

I have put a lot of effort into this. Everything has been cited from credible sources and is in a neutral tone. (@Pythoncoder:),

ps.

I am new and not sure if I am doing this right lmao. Leventdev (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revising the draft. However, I can still see some leftover LLM output in the Editions section, as evidenced by the use of Markdown formatting for italics instead of wikicode. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote that area as well. Leventdev (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to clear the ai claims now?

I spent a significant amount of effort on this and I am starting to lose hope. Leventdev (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're done revising the draft, you can resubmit it. I can't provide you a definitive date for when it will be reviewed (or who will review it), since Wikipedia is a volunteer project. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you help with draft and make it acceptable. Have a Happy Christmas and best or 2026 Mark O'Leary 44 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make the draft acceptable, you will need to rewrite it from scratch without LLM assistance. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder, thank you for your response, but that has already been done, all of it has been rewritten. Mark O'Leary 44 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS Pythoncoder, if you need information; hardcopy interviews, reviews, concert posters, pamphlets or anything else for verification purposes, please send me your email and I can furnish what is required. Mark O'Leary 44 (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	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.
Dear Pythoncoder, I wrote the entire "Draft:Orhan Tanrıkulu" submission myself and have supporting documents to substantiate all statements made within it. It contains no misinformation generated by an LLM. Upon approval of this draft, I will upload dozens of supporting documents to Wikipedia. However, since it is currently a draft, Wikipedia does not allow the upload of these documents. Nevertheless, I have taken your feedback into account and checked for quality issues, attempting to correct the promotional tone, essay-style writing, and speculative statements. I have also restructured much of the text to create a clear section structure in line with Wikipedia norms and moved some details to the references section. If you specifically point out the parts you believe are problematic, I would be happy to review those sections again. However, since you claim there are problems with the entire document, I am unsure what to correct and how, so I desperately need your clear feedback. I would be grateful if you could review it again in light of these explanations and point out areas for correction. Respectfully. Themkview (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks so much for taking a look at this draft. I can assure you, it was human-written and based completely on independent sourcing from news outlets (from hours of research that I did myself!). I've revised some of the language and tone - I think I may have been so focused on ensuring that sources and language were correct that I was too formal.

I would appreciate any specific feedback on areas that appear AI-like so I can address them directly. Hopefully my edits are an improvement.

Thanks again!

Kind Regards, Erin Erin2882 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’m not buying it. It’s not that the writing style is “too formal” — it’s that it contains straight-up mistakes that are almost exclusively made by LLMs. Specific feedback on areas that appear AI-like: the whole draft. Even after your small tweaks it is still obviously LLM output. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - honestly, it was my work, my research. I did need help with the coding and formatting (layout) as I'm still learning Wikipedia...I've gone through it again, re-wrote/re-worded, and sourced some more info.

I did more than just tweak this time around, but I'm going to give it another pass tomorrow before I resubmit. I want to learn how to do this well, so I really do appreciate the feedback. Thank you for taking the time.

Erin

Erin2882 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did need help with the coding and formatting (layout)… yeah, don’t do that. AI is terrible at that too. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - starting from scratch. Thanks so much - I hope the next go is much better. I'll do some more work on learning the formatting myself first before sending off.

Erin2882 (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re having trouble with wikicode, you can also try the VisualEditor —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I have used the VisualEditor (thanks - VERY helpful) and have redone the entire thing. I think the wikicode is correct now, and did some more research too. Any feedback is appreciated!

Erin2882 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pythoncoder-

I saw your comment on my draft of the Quince (company) article. I think I removed the problematic sources you are referring to--the crunchbase stuff and the Forbes Contributors. I had a question on the latter though--I removed an article authored by someone described by their name followed by Forbes "former contributor". But there is also a Forbes article by an author described by their name followed by "Forbes Staff". Do Forbes articles by these authors also fall into the category of generally unreliable or are these OK?

BTW, I am interested in learning python if you have any pointers haha JamesH97 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. Articles by "Forbes Staff" are considered reliable, since those are subject to the magazine's editorial oversight. I've never seen a "former contributor" byline before, but I'm assuming that falls into the same bucket as regular contributors.

Re: Python, I got started by reading books on Python; I'm recalling that No Starch Press has some good ones, but take that with a grain of salt because my information is about a decade old. There are probably online resources too, but I shudder when I think of how AI-infested many of them probably are nowadays. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Python Coder!

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I have been bitten by the "LLM" bug and even after revising my revision, I still received the same notification. I wrote the information in the simplest terms that I could. I tried to ensure that all of the information included was simple, and that all facts were verifiable. That said, I would truly appreciate your guidance on getting past this claim. I also saw that someone recommended that my article be submitted for "speedy deletion" yet, I could not find the button to contest after following the instructions. Could you please provide me with some insight? --Angelicamcintyre (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use any LLMs while editing the draft? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pythoncoder

Thanks for your hint on the third-party spelling of SourceHut rather than sourcehut. I've edited the draft accordingly.

However, it has been rejected a second time for lack of notoriety and I am not sure whether I can/should continue hunting for references.

Best, Kobzar1840 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kobzar1840, I did some reference-hunting and here are a few sources I found:

• TechRepublic, this one seems quite good
• The Record, only a few sentences so doesn't count for notability
• Search Engine Journal, only a few sentences so doesn't count for notability
• TechCrunch, only a few sentences so doesn't count for notability

This was just from what Google News pulled up, so maybe there's a few more sources out there too. Hope this helps, and good luck —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Pythoncoder, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. GGOTCC 00:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages. GGOTCC 00:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pythoncoder: , my submission has been declined by you. I want to understand as to how else one would write a draft other than what I submitted. It is accepted that the draft was 'written properly' by ChatGPT, but all the information in the draft was collated by this writer based upon reliable sources. Nothing in the draft is made-up in the writer's mind. Could you please once-and-for all, enlighten on what needs to be done, because for the last couple of times the reasons for the rejections are vague and open-ended. I want my draft to go public ASAP, and therefore would want this to resolve quickly. Anicca anitya (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The decline reasons are neither vague nor open-ended. AI-generated articles are not allowed. Please read WP:NEWLLM. It’s literally two sentences long. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for all the good work you're doing. I noticed you've recently been moving some articles to draftspace, leaving behind a redirect which you correctly marked for speedy deletion by an admin. I thought you might be interested in applying for the WP:PAGEMOVER right, as that includes suppressredirect (move a page without creating a redirect), which may save time. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for the kind words. It's always nice to hear when someone appreciates my cleanup work, because oh boy do I have to put up with a lot of crap as a result of my AI cleanup efforts (to be fair, sometimes it's because of a mistake I made, but I think my error rate is decreasing? maybe?). Secondly, saying that I'm "correctly mark[ing the redirects] for speedy deletion" might be giving too much credit, because I'm just using WP:MTD for the moves and it handles that automatically. Thirdly, I'm recalling that I requested page-mover permissions a year or two ago but got denied because I didn't demonstrate need for the tools (I think). Do you think the permission would be granted if I applied at WP:RFR now? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You still warrant some credit for using MTD! I had a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+permissions%2F&search=pythoncoder&ns0=1 and you've not been "officially" denied that permission before, but in any case I'm sure you're more experienced now than you were a year ago, and supressing creating redirects when moving pages seems like a legitimate need to me, so I'd say go for it. Looks like you've moved 100s of pages before already over the years. Plus everyone makes mistakes the odd time, I certainly do! I also saw you have the New page reviewer right, and the current backlog drive at WP:JANFEB26 may be of interest too. Keep up the good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. I wanted to address the comment about AI. I wrote the article based on the cited sources. I did not use an LLM to generate the article. I did use Wikipedia's citation formatting tools and Microsoft Word for grammar/spelling, but the content itself is original. I attempted to mimic phrasing and structure from other industry peers (e.g., Brian Behlendorf, Phil Venables (computer scientist)). Apologies if the tone came off as artificial. If there are specific sections that stand out as problematic, I'm happy to revise them. For context, the subject has significant coverage from The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Economist, and NPR Planet Money, among others. I believe the notability requirements that concerned @MCE89 are now met. Please let me know how best to proceed. Uniforn (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are the same person as the last 5 anonymous accounts to edit the draft, I'm having trouble squaring your comment with the fact that 3 of the last 5 anons' edit summaries read strongly like they were LLM-generated, and ditto for the {{afc comment}} at the top of the draft. Why is that? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of the anonymous submissions were me. I created an account as I was blocked from providing more anonymous edits.

As mentioned, the only editing tools I’ve used outside of Wikipedia was Microsoft Word. I’m a new editor and did my best to make these edits and submissions based on what I saw in other drafts.

I’m happy to learn and correct, but I assure you the only external tool used was Word.

is there a particular section I should rewrite? Uniforn (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I looked at every substantive revision, and while I still find the edit summaries and AfC comments suspicious, I'm now thinking the body text could be human-generated (maybe 70% confidence?) so I'll revert my decline. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder thanks, if there’s anything I can change in the body, please let me know. I appreciate your feedback! Uniforn (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pythoncoder. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Concepción de Buena Esperanza is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Concepción de Buena Esperanza will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pythoncoder,

Happy new year, hope you're well. I've had some assistance on my draft and was wondering if you could take a look at it please. Thank you! Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anything needs to be updated or changed please let me know. Thanks! Wiki4RAMZY (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the draft. I've gone ahead and resubmitted it on your behalf. You should get a response back within the next few weeks. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proud of yourself for being the type editor that drives others away? I'm retiring. I don't come here to be harassed. BYE. MisawaSakura (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Context because I've been noticing some talk page stalkers hanging around here recently: I asked the user on their talk page if they were using LLMs on new articles they created. They didn't respond, and instead archived the thread. I moved the thread back and asked again, and they responded:

They still didn't really answer the question, so I asked one more time, and they responded "NO, you whoa whoa whoa. I told you to leave me alone. I don't answer to you." then deleted that message and rage-quit. I'm going to take this incivility to mean that she was indeed using LLMs and didn't want to take accountability for her violation of Wikipedia guidelines. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a job for you in this context, but we should probably do a scope of the articles and see if there any more unambiguous LLM written content. I saw an article go to draft and ended up here :p Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I opened a thread on WP:LLMN. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This is awarded to Pythoncoder for accumulating more than 804.5 points during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This AFC comment actually made me laugh. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, helpful community 👌super profesh! Gross. ~2026-26006-2 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d argue that what’s gross and unprofessional is poisoning Wikipedia with LLM output in direct contravention of our guidelines. Have a nice day! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by unprofessional, it is just information on a NJ based political commentator. If there is anything that would need to be changed, I can make the edits. JerseyCutlets33 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JerseyCutlets33 My comment above was unrelated to your draft. As you can see if you click the link that says “This AFC comment”, this thread is about a comment I made about a pop-punk artist, hence the section title. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pythoncoder,

Thank you for taking the time to have a look at my Draft. And well spotted: I did use an LLM to help me write the text.
I understand the guidelines and I understand you need to protect wikipedia against hallunicated content, exagerated text, references to pages that have nothing to do with the context, etc. Which is why I've been very carefull in how I've used it. This is my first wiki page so I've used it to help me with these aspects: a structure that users expect, proper english (I'm not a native speaker) and details like how to create a good citation, or wether or not it's a good idea to put citations in the intro or later in the text, etc. I reasoned that an LLM would know these things better than me, because it has the knowledge of the whole of wikipedia. But other than that: the content is mine. Every line is exactly how I want it to be, with exactly the words that capture the essence. I've literally spent hours creating this page and making sure every line and every word is correct; i've looked for references myself and decided which ones to use, etc. So I wouldn't know what to do differently, apart from introducing spelling mistakes to make it look more human.

So I'd like to get your feedback about what the main problem is that I need to address, because I wouldn't know what to change. TheWikiMarty (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I wouldn't know what to do differently
Writing it yourself would be a good start. – LuniZunie_(talk) 20:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is why I love having talk page stalkers (no sarcasm here). This is exactly how I would've responded, and someone else already did it for me! @TheWikiMarty go read WP:NEWLLM again. It's literally two sentences long. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I watch your page specifically for these LLM decline responses and your response :p – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be here all week... or month... or until the AI bubble pops... or until I lose my sanity. Tip your server. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that and I didn't use it to generate a page from scratch. I wrote the Draft page - that I used an LLM to help me doesn't mean I didn't write it. If you read my first message here I've explained how I used it. I have not copy-pasted the output of a prompt that says: generate this and that page for me - because yes, that would have been full of content that is not entirely correct or plain wrong.

I intended to create a grammatically correct, objective and factually correct page that would be a good addition to wikipedia and that is exactly what it is (grammatically correct (I hope), objective and factually correct). From lunizunie's resonse I get the feeling you're just here to try to spot LLM usage so you can bash on it - it seems that even earned you some followers. Really nice. But not really helpfull; it would be more helpfull if you could point out what the problem is with the content, so I can address that. If I reverse the LLM usage it would still be the same content, except for the fact that the sentences would be less good structured. I really have no idea what that would accomplish. TheWikiMarty (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From lunizunie's resonse I get the feeling you're just here to try to spot LLM usage so you can bash on it
Yes, we don't want to waste our time reviewing and arguing with a robot.

If I reverse the LLM usage it would still be the same content
Well clearly not, since we can easily tell it is LLM generated.

I once again am telling you, that the solution to make it "look human", is to literally write it as a human, not a human paraphrasing or copyediting of a bot, you need to actually write it yourself. Don't try to cheat the system. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Python! Thanks so much for reviewing my submission. I reviewed your feedback carefully and modified the sources used in my submission to ensure I was further improving it based on your feedback. The article is written myself and I did so for an academic endeavour. I appreciate your review and feel that the articles matches the same standards now that other similar business pages have.

Appreciate your work in our community! Scotthilliardez (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Python! Happy 25th Wikipedia Birthday!

I recently started my journey as an editor with the goal of expanding coverage on legislation regarding gambling, sweepstakes, and the gaming industry. I noticed the note on my talk page regarding potential paid contributions, and I want to clarify my position to clear up any confusion. I am an independent contributor with a personal interest in these topics. I have no professional affiliation with the individuals or entities I’ve edited, and I am not receiving any compensation for my work here. To ensure I’m following best practices, I’ve spent time over the last 24 hours studying the Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guidelines. I did read these including the terms and conditions. In my enthusiasm to get things right, specifically regarding a biographical photo, I did reach out to the subject’s team to ask about granting me permission to edit their photo on January 9th. I cropped a photo from their website and asked for permission to use it in an article I was working on. I saw an opportunity about someone I knew a lot of information about and thought it could be a high traffic article due to his recent news. I realize now that this may have looked like a professional connection, but it was simply an attempt to source a high quality, compliant image for the project. I also modeled the article after existing biographies on Wikipedia. I am committed to maintaining Wikipedia's editorial standards and am eager to contribute neutrally. Please let me know if there is anything specific I should address to resolve the flag on my account.

Best, Salv0603 Salv0603 (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Salv0603 Hey, is this in part AI generated? – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences about COI and NPOV. I’ve deep dived into these and I’m not sure what the flag is about, or where or why I am flagged for this topic. I haven’t received money from anyone. I did reach out to them, hopefully they can send an email to Wikipedia to confirm I have no paid affiliation to clear this up so I can resume building on Wikipedia. I only asked for permission and rights usage to edit a photo which is standard practice, I thought. Salv0603 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Salv0603 Please stop using AI to generate your comments, we are here to talk to humans, not a robot, the message you just sent is also AI also seems AI. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn’t.. copy and paste it in a Ai detection tool. I didn’t use any Ai writing that lol. Salv0603 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Salv0603: While it is true that your last message here came out as 0% when checked by ZeroGPT, your message before that one came out at around 49%, and almost the entire message was flagged. Next time, please do not lie about AI use. Nononsense101 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the first sentence of the second response, it specified which portion was used with Ai! I didn’t lie! Thank you Salv0603 (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello pythoncoder I wanna find out more information about your declined to fix ~2026-31993-5 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:42 for a short introduction to notability and sources on Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

Thank you for reviewing my articles! I didn’t expect LLM-related concerns to come up, but your comments clearly pointed out where the material could be improved (no more overattribution from now on 🙂). After a long break from editing Wikipedia, you were the first person to engage with my work and offer feedback, and I truly appreciate that! Alexandra Goncharik -sms- 20:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pythoncoder, I notcied you left a message on my draft saying that the French Wikipedia can't be used as a soruce.

How come? Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIRC —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Pythoncoder, I understand now! Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pythoncoder, I removed the citations! Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyton Coder， Thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. I wrote this article based on a combination of references and writing, and I will review the content to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's requirements on original writing. Thank you.EntryCurator (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Audio Denoising[reply]

Hi. You declined my submission because of the references. What kind of references am I supposed to use for an artist bio besides press and magazine coverage? Monkeyswk (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Monkeyswk Good question. The first two references on Draft:Cely look good; we just need one or two more of them. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

👏!! qcne (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. This is a huge honor, but naturally I left my acceptance speech at home because I didn't expect to win. Uh, I'd like to thank my family, the Academy, and Willy on Wheels. In conclusion, I will try to get a life this year in order to bring my numbers down. Try the veal. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this is my first article teach me Meta34552 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Meta34552, see WP:Your first article. guninvalid (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i edited article aa per Wikipedia Meta34552 (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

do something for article will be accepted Wikipedia is free encyclopedia any one can edit some mad editor rejecting Meta34552 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings P, I submitted my first listing on January 10 which you helped to offer correction avenues and declined. I first opened an account with Wikipedia in "I think" 2021. It is since that time I have been doing extensive research on Denst. I wrote, not AI, all that is there from my notes on private conversations with his family, employees, friends, as well as hours of looking through newspaper articles held by the The Chicago History Museum and books cited in my references. I can do a better job of making it look more encyclopedia like and I can reference exact pages in those books or dates of articles. However, for example, I spoke to Leonard Olson, Denst nephew, owner of Tabor Hill Winery and he told me Jack gave him the money to start the business. How should I substantiate facts like that? I'll do a better job but it will take time. Best regards, ~2026-48010-6 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Draft:Jack Denst again and I now believe it is not AI-generated, so I have removed the tag. I've removed the excessive bold text, which is a common sign of LLM use (which in this case was a false positive). The main issue now is the nonneutral tone of the article. Wikipedia articles are not intended to promote their subjects, and as such, language such as the following should be rephrased or removed:

• Jack Denst, the iconic mid-century modern trailblazer...
• ...redefined mid-century modern interior design by elevating wallcoverings and murals into a recognized art form.
• ...the design studio became known for large-scale patterns and daring color combinations that often-stayed years ahead of mainstream consumer trends.

In terms of the sources:

• The best way to cite sources is through the "Cite" tab in the visual or source editor. It'll help you create high-quality citations in Wikipedia's preferred format.
• For periodicals, volume/issue numbers would be nice if possible.
• Similarly, ISBNs for books would be appreciated.
• Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow original research to be published in articles, which means any information in an article must be theoretically verifiable by a reliable published source. Secondary sources are preferred, but see WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF for more on how primary sources may be used. For example, for the Tabor Hill Winery example, if there's an interview or a social media post talking about how the business got started, that would probably be okay to cite because the founder is talking about his own family.

Hope this helps. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... WTF??? I'll let you decide how best to proceed... If your opt for an ANI def ping me... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08 Yeah, that's the level of personal attacks that makes me skip the dramaboard, go straight to AIV, and request a TPA revoke. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaand blocked for 60 hours. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pythoncoder, thans for the comment. I wrote the Unexplained podcast page and very much not a LLM, as far as I know! I felt it was necessary to include a few media citations for the page to have credibility, which seems to be highly recommended by wikipedia for new articles. So, it would be a harsh reason to dispute the page... But very happy to amend it if you think it could be done better, do you have any advice in that regard? Thanks again! Motorik2000 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Motorik2000 Thanks for responding to my comment. Based on what you've said here, I have removed it from the draft; I was on the fence so I thought I'd ask, and now I have an answer. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, thank you! (And well done for wading through all my typos!) Motorik2000 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You declined my contribution for EverythingBranded due to "Overemphasis on attributing media sources suggests LLM use". I can assure you this was all my own work - I wrote this without any use of ChatGPT - I have a Masters Degree in History which is why I tend to source everything in detail which maybe causing issues. Is there anything I can do to amend this piece to get it approved, i.e. any advice please? I have had 3 previous pages approved and have written in the same style and with citations so not sure why this one is not ok. But I guess I did submit all those before ChatGPT was even a thing!

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Hannah Kal (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the draft again and I believe you when you say you wrote it yourself. As such I have reverted my decline. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannahseo Also, do you have any other Wikipedia accounts? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannahseo Please answer my question ASAP. Thanks —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannahseo FYI the user that submitted the draft, Ohshell, has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. If this is a coworker who submitted the draft on your behalf, please know that we advise that users not submit text that others wrote because it can lead to consequences like this. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I’m curious what’s needed to get approved? I wrote the page myself so should one include more details when writing about an artist? I cited and referenced her recent articles for Kyla Nicole Healey. Thank you for your time, simply trying to understand what’s needed Wanderllustforest (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wanderllustforest You might be the first real human to erroneously use Markdown formatting in an article. I’ve reverted the decline. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	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.
@Pythoncoder: That’s a fair point — thanks for flagging it. I agree that phrasing like that doesn’t belong in article prose, and I’m happy for it to be removed or rewritten. I’ll step back from substantive editing and leave wording decisions to uninvolved editors, in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Appreciate you pointing it out Lofogo Sarour (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ripio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MightyRanger (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder,

I've come across this page audio cleaner which was obviously AI generated (poorly cited, hallucinated references and whatnot), and I noticed the editor who created it previously made an AfC for audio denoising which you pointed out was also AI generated. I just thought someone should know they wrote something very similar under a different title (which is even worse since audio cleaner isn't a term used in literature). I'm not sure what to do here.

Regards, SecretSpectre (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have draftified the page and warned the creator. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	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.
Hi Pythoncoder , I noticed you added a tag regarding AI-generated content to the Selcan Doğruöz draft. I understand your concern, but I want to clarify that I have manually reviewed and updated the draft to ensure accuracy and encyclopedic tone. Most importantly, I’ve added a high-quality academic source: a Master's Thesis from Marmara University (2015) that specifically mentions her career on page 162 (PDF page 176). I've also integrated other reliable sources like KırmızıTürk. I am committed to making this article fully compliant with Wikipedia standards. Could you please let me know which specific parts still look artificial to you? I will gladly rewrite them manually to remove the tag. Best regards Kirhisan (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rolan's Curse, a link pointing to the disambiguation page NMK was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article you mentioned, I was under the impression that my draft article would sit in draft and I'd get feedback before the article was published following multiple edits. It seems the information was incorrect. Please can you make the text available, and I'll continue to make the article more balanced. JPaulSimpson (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPaulSimpson Since the page was deleted for being a blatant advertisement, you’re probably better off if you start over from scratch. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, I disagree. Some of the language at the top is a bit promotional as it started as a cut and paste to get the timeline. Later sections of the article create the context and Wikipedia is very light on auditor competence. JPaulSimpson (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPaulSimpson Well, you shouldn’t be cut-and-pasting from other places either. Also, I wasn’t the person who actually deleted the page. Only administrators can do that, which means at least one other person read it and concluded it to be spam. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's an overreach. I said 'a bit'. So if you can't recover my work who can? You both obviously read the first paragraph and made a snap judgement. It's all very well getting preachy now. Lesson learned, moderators act first and are unhelpful. JPaulSimpson (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Wikipedia about how to get actions from reviewers and Administrators is a thankless task. I did come across this, though. Honoured in the breach? JPaulSimpson (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPaulSimpson If you’d like a copy of the deleted page’s text so you can revise it, you can ask @BusterD, the admin who deleted it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. it did ask for this on his talk page .... waiting. JPaulSimpson (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You reviewed my submission on Draft:Martina Dimoska (added the link for easy access 🥹). I want to start by saying thank you for recommending the Teahouse forum after your review because that has helped me since then in refining the draft. I've received so much feedback on cutting down the fluff, taking out unreliable references, using the right image copyright... it's been a loootttt. So I've gotten to a point in the draft where I don't think it gets any better than that... I don't know if this is possible (or ethical (⁠ー⁠_⁠ー⁠゛⁠)) since you once declined my draft, but may I request that you have a look at the updated draft and let me know what you think and maybe my chances at another resubmission? Thank you for your time. 🫶 SpaceTrail (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article looks much improved, and if you think you’ve done everything you can do, then I’d encourage you to resubmit it. Good luck, —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the previous submission was rejected. I took my time to improve the draft. Added proper citations after careful review and improved the text. As of now, I can not resubmit it. Could you please guide me the next steps? Thanks. Addedbabe (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some more detail about your editing process? Because I’m seeing a lot of text that hasn’t changed since the version I rejected. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been changed. I have added proper references and wrote the article based on the available information from the sources. I am not sure why it appeared same to you since you have rejected the draft. But it was significantly improved. I am attaching the diff link here. Link It shows your rejected version vs now. Addedbabe (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s see: LLM-generated edit summary AFTER my rejection… LLM-generated comment on my talk page… I do not believe the concerns that led to my rejection of your draft have been addressed. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that edit summary and talk page messages count towards draft rejection or acceptance.

As far as I know LLM is allowed, but limited to Copyediting. On my draft no information was taken from LLM or citation was generated from LLM. Just to clarify, previously when you rejected the draft, the draft was written with the help of grammar tools to fix the text and tone, not to do complete research or generating citations and informations, but just for copyediting.

But now, I have rewritten the draft, and fact checked manually. I am happy to fix the draft in the future.

So now, I request you to manually verify the informations and citations on that draft. If you find any information that is not correct as per the references, then please suggest or give advices. Or if you could directly mention the problems on the parts of the texts of the draft that would be great. For reference, Wikipedia:Large language models, which says LLM is allowed for copy editing.

Addedbabe (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LLM is an essay, not a guideline, which means it is someone’s opinion and should not be relied on for judgements on what is or isn’t allowed. Furthermore, the LLM-generated “fixes” you speak of actually served to make the draft’s writing style worse from a tone standpoint. While edit summaries and talk page messages are by definition separate from the text of the draft, your continued use of LLMs for both after you were repeatedly made aware of Wikipedia’s rule against LLMs is indicative of dishonesty on your part, which dissuades me from opening your draft back up for resubmission. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing two points of my previous message.

First: I have mentioned that the last revision of the draft is now LLM free, which means I have manually re-written the draft and checked the facts.

Second: I have asked for suggestions and advices to fix the draft. Which means, if you could help me or suggest me to change certain parts of the article that would be so nice of you. In addition to that, I also requested you to manually review the text and the references and give me suggestions.

From your previous message you have mentioned that, I continued using LLM for Edit Summaries and Talk page, which is partially true. But on the other hand I honestly stated that, I didn't use LLM on the draft text. And only the draft article text exclusively should be the subject of Judgement, not the editors style of edit summaries or the talkpage message. I manually made sure that LLM texts were removed from the draft following your instructions.

So I believe that you would be kind enough to judge the draft article only, rather than edit summaries or talk page message. After your judgement,please state that, wheather you think that the draft needs be rewritten again to change the tone before resubmitting, or it is okay now to be resubmitted. Addedbabe (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture me on the “correct” way to review drafts when your only Wikipedia edits have been related to this one draft where you presumably have a financial interest in its acceptance. If I were following your proposal, that would mean that if, say, an editor left comments on the talk page of a draft they submitted, then I would have to ignore those. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, if you have felt that I was lecturing. That was not the intention. You are more experinced than me obviously. But my writing style may felt like I was lecturing, which was not what I ment.

As per WP:PAID, I have disclosed everything and also stated that I will be editing only the subjects related to the company that I work for. That is why my editing history is limited. But before I started everything, I have made sure that I will be following every policy of Wikipedia. I have disclosed that on my user page, draft article and draft article talk page before any edits that I have made.

So my request is, don't take my messages personally. I was trying to say that, as you are more experienced with a great track record on Wikipedia, then you shouldn't be judging a draft only based on edit summary and Talk page message.

I believe that you have checked the draft and the information on it, and have seen the updates that I have made. So, I am hoping for either a suggestion about the draft, or if you still don't want it to be resubmitted, then an explanation of the action, which will answer, why you don't want the article to be resubmitted, and which Wikipedia policies that draft didn't follow and was not fixed.

Again I am really sorry, if you have found my previous message being rude. I am personally not a bad person. My writing style of previous message may have offended you. But I was really not questioning your experience.

Addedbabe (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PythoncoderHello. I am expecting a reply from you.

Thanks.

Addedbabe (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Addedbabe Okay, I've looked at the references (there were a few duplicates so I merged them together) and here is my evaluation of them:

• 1, 3: These are interviews, and very promotional ones at that, so they do not count for notability.
• 4: Appears to be a paid press release that is not disclosed as such.
• 2, 5: The same press release but in Arabic (I don't read Arabic so I'm relying on machine translation here).
• 6, 7: Routine coverage about his businesses which doesn't count for notability.

In summary, there are currently zero sources in the draft that provide evidence in favor of the subject's notability. You can read WP:42 for a quick introduction to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have unlocked your draft so that you may resubmit it once you add additional high-quality sources, but please be aware that if the draft does not see improvements in this area, it will be rejected again. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	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.
I have performed a comprehensive manual rewrite to address the 'LLM output' and notability concerns. Tone Correction: I have removed all subjective 'peacock' terms and promotional framing, including the sections on 'Media Coverage' and analysis of 'Vision 2030' which were previously flagged as essay-like. Factual Grounding: The article is now focused strictly on verified business milestones. Notability & Sources: I have added independent, high-quality coverage from Bloomberg and Forbes Middle East regarding the 2022 IATC acquisition. These sources confirm the $28.6 million transaction and provide the significant coverage required for GNG along with the previous citations. I believe this version is now a neutral, factual record suitable for Wikipedia." Here is the diff link: Addedbabe (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pythoncoder.

A real human and Wikipedia user here, really typing this message to you! I see you're anti-AI-slop; as an English major and someone who has written professionally for the past decade, I feel the exact same way. I appreciate your altruistic dedication to ridding Wikipedia of it. This brings me to my next point: Your rejection of my Stratos Jets draft on the basis of it being LLM-generated is unfounded and inaccurate.

I spent hours researching dozens of sources and did my best to write/present this company in a concise, clear, and accurate way (based on my sources), given my COI. There are zero flourishes of language, personal opinions, personal essay-like writing, etc.; all clear-cut facts delivered as such based on what the listed sources covered.

Rather than me spinning my wheels for hours guessing the revisions you're looking for, I'd love to know how you came to this conclusion (whether you used a flawed LLM output checker like GPTZero), and how the language could be presented to you in a way that's acceptable, with an example.

I genuinely look forward to getting this discussion going. Jcaspers37 (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jcaspers37,

While I cannot be 100% certain of whether the draft you submitted is LLM-generated, it is highly unusual for a human-written draft to (1) contain this much unnecessary in-text attribution of its sources, (2) explain twice that CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer then never use the acronym on its own in the body text (and do something similar for AOG), and (3) have exactly zero wikilinks in the body text. What’s going on here?

P.S.: I do not use GPTZero when reviewing drafts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, @Pythoncoder. I thought in-text attribution was necessary in certain situations, especially when making specific/factual claims. Again, I am coming at this as a contributor with a COI; I was trying to do everything possible to ensure this did not hinder the page’s potential publication (if deemed acceptable/notable enough). This draft only uses in-text attribution at certain points. Based on the Signs of AI Writing guide you linked above, it seems like AI has triggered this structure to be more obsolete in “...trivial coverage, uncontroversial facts, or other situations where a human Wikipedia editor would be more likely to either provide an inline citation or no source at all.” I will note this change moving forward.

Regarding including CEO/AOG acronyms + definitions twice each: From a user standpoint, is it best to avoid including them? Should I include them only upon first mention if there’s a related Wikilink? This is a best practice in certain writing fields, which is why I included them.

Apologies for no added Wikilinks. Just like with the acronym feedback, this could've been explicitly suggested rather than a sweeping LLM claim. I submitted this through AfC to get feedback just like this, and determine whether Stratos Jets is notable enough for a page.

Thanks for clarifying that you don’t use tools like GPTZero. I appreciate your feedback as I learn the platform.

I will make the acronym inclusion changes, add Wikilinks, and remove in-text attribution and rewrite those sentences in my own words + include their inline citations. Jcaspers37 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

The most helpful thing you can do is clarify whether you used AI tools (including "rewriting" tools such as Grammarly); you haven't actually said here whether you did or not. That way nobody has to spin their wheels.

As far as the text goes, there are other issues:

• A lot of the article is composed of routine coverage and aggregated press releases, which are not indicative of notability; see WP:CORPDEPTH for details.
• Much of this draft seems to be overly close paraphrasing of the sources cited, often changing only a handful of words.
• There are some source-to-text integrity issues. For instance, the draft cites "Stratos Jets agencies arrange charter flights..." to a government code of regulations that obviously says nothing about what Stratos Jets does. It characterizes a Florida government database entry as "reporting," which it isn't.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Gnomingstuff.

I'll be sure to clarify that no AI tools were used in future submissions.

Understood that Stratos Jets may not be notable enough; that’s what I was most curious about with my AfC submission. It can be difficult to determine what’s notable enough and what’s not, as I’ve seen several different opinions on this across the platform. Is it true that, as a general inclusion threshold, a subject needs “at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a secondary and reliable source”? I am assuming those foundational two sources re: notability must be perennial and check all the Wikipedia sourcing boxes (e.g., secondary, in-depth, independent, reliable, etc.)?

In terms of overly close paraphrasing, how do you suggest someone with a COI write about a company, given Wikipedia’s strict NPOV/COI rules? I’d love some support in understanding what this could look like for a sentence or two for Stratos Jets.

Re: the "Stratos Jets agencies arrange charter flights” callout: It’s a federal regulation that all air charter brokers must adhere to; the source link explains this. There isn’t a secondary/independent source that explicitly states Stratos Jets follows this rule, so I thought the sweeping air charter broker law regulation documentation would suffice (companies can't operate without following this regulation).

I can also tweak the “reporting” language when referring to the Florida government database entry, no problem.

Thanks for your review and insights! Jcaspers37 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The notability standards for companies tend to be stricter than the general notability guideline (the one that that page mentions), but for instance a news story that "the company is giving away 5 charters" is more of a routine update than significant coverage. The WP:NCORP page goes into more depth on this. Close paraphrasing kind of goes hand in hand with that, since a lot of the stuff that's being copied is the press-release language, like "build their client base" or "shared services model."

Unfortunately if there isn't a secondary source that explicitly states a conclusion, then that conclusion can't go into the article (see WP:SYNTH). Just because something's a federal regulation doesn't necessarily mean everyone's following it -- it does mean they're supposed to, but people violate regulations all the time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's appropriate to unilaterally draftify something a different AfC reviewer accepted? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I asked myself the same question as I was moving it... until I found the smoking gun. That's a clear LLM-generated skeleton, and later revisions seem to confirm that the article is LLM output, possibly with some human tweaks. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder This is an article I've been working on for some weeks, researching and revising. The "smoking gun" was an attempt to structure a new article, and if you truly look at later revisions and compare to the final draft, you'll find it's not the same. I can provide multiple drafts sent via email between humans, including the latest revision, where older cases were added. ArticleArchivist118 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just from this smoking gun, I definitely dislike that they used an AI to generate this, but I also don't think it means that the current existing draft is necessarily LLM. The problem with LLMs is that they generate unverifiable nonsense, but if the content is verifiable and high quality, it's fine. I'm not sure about the current draft since I haven't looked at it, but that's my 2¢. guninvalid (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sleep on this —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at the draft again and I'm standing by my earlier determination that it's not ready for mainspace because I'm still seeing a number of AI signs:

• Overexplaining acronyms — do a ⌘F search for "(DRBC)", "(FERC)", "(EPA)"
  • Similarly, you have "maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)" but then the acronym is never actually used on its own in the body text
• "Independent reporting has described the ruling as..." — I have never seen a human-written article that uses the phrase "independent reporting", with the possible exception of journalism-related articles
• Edit summaries frequently ending with the phrase "with independent sources", which LLMs love to put in the edit summaries they generate

Admittedly this is more of an edge case than some of the other pages created by this user, but I feel like the submitter is not being fully honest about the extent of their LLM use when I look at this and the other pages they've created (e.g. they're trying to pass off past edits as merely "AI-sounding" which seems like an understatement based on the draft's actual text at the time I declined it). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw the submission for Nick Rappolt was rejected very quickly - could you give me some pointers to re-submit please? thanks ~2025-39271-48 (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t submit AI slop, and don’t resubmit drafts before addressing the previous reviewer’s comments. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think I submitted the draft before I had changed it as I wasn't sure of the process - can I redraft and resubmit please? ~2025-39271-48 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've unlocked the page. For future reference, please don't submit the draft until you're done editing it — once a draft has been submitted, reviewers will assume it's finished and ready to be reviewed as-is. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much! ~2025-39271-48 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you declined my article submission here: Draft:Ketan Patel.

I was hoping you could let me know whether this version is more in line with your expectations of what this page needs to be in terms of style, content, format, references, etc. I did not actually use an AI to generate the first version - nor this version. I notice that certain AI copy detection tools like ZeroGPT flag this page, when the reality is I wrote it I guess sounding like AI.

Anyway I have yet to resubmit i wanted to check with you first based on the edits I made in the version I just published: 1. I made sure that the references were perfect 2. I made sure that each point that required a citation didn’t have more than 1 citation unless strictly necessary. 3. I cleaned up the prose to sound more ‘encyclopaedic’ as per the writing guidelines page. 4. I removed any unsubstantiated claims. 5. I compared the page in the end to a couple of leaders’ like Peter Thiel for style and ensured it read similarly both in terms of tone and structure.

Please let me know your thoughts and whether I can resubmit or not. Annikamonari (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Annikamonari Something isn't adding up, because I'm still seeing a lot of overattribution, plus one reference error (i.e. not "perfect") and a couple nonexistent categories. What's going on?

PS: I do not use GPTZero to review drafts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Pythoncoder

Thank you very much for pointing out these issues I am new to Wiki and therefore my ability when working with the particular syntax for source editing is quite rudimentary.

I have read the article linked about overattribution - thanks for that - and as a result made some significant modifications to remove ‘stacking’ and dossier/cv-like information, keeping only the most pertinent there.

I have also fixed the reference issues and categories - sorry about this, again it was my mistake with the source editing that these slipped through.

Please let me know your thoughts. Ta x Annikamonari (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder Annikamonari (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this is totally AI though innit —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it’s not. And everything was fixed. What makes you think its AI? ~2026-14718-09 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me rephrase. You are correct, the edit summary AI used AI to generate but none of the text etc was. Is the text ok? I really triple checked it and removed the overattribution to the point where the article has basically been cut in half. ~2026-14718-09 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re still using an LLM to generate edit summaries, that would track strongly with you using LLMs to edit the actual content as well. That said, I’m on the fence about the draft text, so I’ll AGF and remove the AI tag, and I’ll leave it for someone else to review when you resubmit it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder

I actually used an LLM to compare the draft previously to the one I had written since it was quite late, so that it could identify the issues. If you see in the text, i heavily redacted almost half of the article, altered the number of references per claim, and ensured all references were correct. As a point I had never used AI to generate the content. And I made sure to review this multiple times in order to get it passed. Please if you don’t mind taking one last check of the content, I’d hope it’s sufficient. I’d written this page about this man because right now, given the ethics in AI debate etc he is making big efforts in the UK to do something about it and I wanted his name to get out there as much as possible because in my local region there now is someone to support in trying to implement something that prevents us becoming enslaved to the US… Annikamonari (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder, I'm a graduate student at the University of Michigan working on a research project about how the English Wikipedia community handles content policy violations. I've posted more details on my user page and on the research page on Meta.

As part of this project, I've been analyzing revert data from administrators and patrollers — about 1.6 million revert records from 2020 to 2026. One of the most striking patterns in the data is the emergence of LLM-related reverts: almost nonexistent before 2023, then growing rapidly through 2024 and 2025. When I looked at who is doing this work, your name stood out — about 78% of your recent reverts are LLM-related, which is by far the highest specialization rate among active patrollers.

I'm trying to understand this phenomenon from a research perspective — how the community recognized and responded to a completely new type of content problem in real time, and what the experience looks like from the people actually doing the work.

A few things I'd appreciate your perspective on:

1. How do you identify LLM-generated content? Are there specific writing patterns, formatting artifacts, or other signals you've learned to recognize? I'm curious whether the tells have changed over time — whether submissions are getting harder to spot compared to a year ago.
2. AFC vs. mainspace: Your LLM work seems concentrated in the AFC queue. Do you think the patterns of LLM content differ between new draft submissions and edits to existing articles? My current dataset is built from mainspace reverts, so I'm trying to understand whether I'm missing an important part of the picture.
3. Tools and workflow: Is there anything in your current workflow where you feel like better tooling could help — not necessarily AI-based, just anything that would make the review process less tedious? I know you use Twinkle (which is shown in your userpage); I'm curious whether there are gaps in the existing tool ecosystem for this specific type of work.

For context, one direction I'm exploring is whether the revert records that patrollers leave behind — the edit summaries, the policy tags, the patterns of what gets reverted — could be useful as a research resource for studying how content moderation works on Wikipedia. I'd be interested to hear whether you think that's a reasonable use of this data, or whether you see issues with that approach.

I'd also be curious whether you're familiar with the Edit Check project from the Growth Team — the system that gives new editors real-time feedback before they save an edit, currently with Reference Check and Tone Check. I understand they're actively working on expanding it to detect peacock words and NPOV issues, and to suggest revisions directly in the editing interface. I've been wondering whether something similar could eventually cover other policy areas — for example, flagging likely LLM-generated text before it's even saved. But I'd value your perspective on whether that kind of tool would actually be helpful in practice, or whether LLM detection is too nuanced for an automated pre-save check to handle.

Happy to share any of my data or findings if they'd be useful to you. Thanks for your time.

--Bobocicada (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bobocicada, thanks for reaching out. One question though — you said you had more details on your userpage, but you don't appear to have a userpage here (or on Meta-Wiki). I have a few more questions after that, but first I'd just like to make sure I'm going at this at the right angle. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder, thanks for the quick reply! I was actually still editing my userpage when you saw it — I hadn't finished yet. My apologies for the confusion. The main details about the project are on the research page on Meta-Wiki. I should note that what's on the research page is still very much a preliminary outline — I'm actively seeking community input to figure out which directions make the most sense and are actually useful from an editor's perspective. I also have my own concerns about parts of the approach, so I'd genuinely welcome any questions, pushback, or suggestions you might have. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! --Bobocicada (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC) --Bobocicada (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here. I can speak a little bit about Pycoder since I've interacted with them in the past, but I'm also an AfC reviewer so I'll first give my own 2¢. Your best resource here would be at WP:AISIGNS, which Pycoder and I have both used.

When ChatGPT went mainstream around 2023/2024, I was doing my undergrad classes, including classes that asked me to do discussion posts and answer 2 of my classmates posts; you probably know the idea very well. I did notice around this time that some of my classmates' posts had the same general "vibe" to them. It was clear enough to me that those posts had been LLM generated, and I found other posts to respond to instead. Fortunately I was an undergrad teaching assistant up until right around this point, so I never had to deal with grading too much AI slop. I requested WP:AfC reviewer permissions a few times in 2025, and I finally got probationary status in November before becoming official in January 2026. In this time, I have also declined several drafts for AI generation. Some of the most blatant cases are evident enough in their edit history; they tend to only have 5 edits: one +7Kb page creation, 1 AfC submission, two unrelated edits by a bot or unrelated editor, and 1 decline for AI generation and not notable. Other cases are not so obvious, but I find I can still feel it out by "vibe" and see if I can pick out any signs. Most common I still see are WP:WEASELWORD-y statements and rule of threes for otherwise very apparently nonnotable persons and companies (or very rarely topics). I'll provide a few examples later if you'd like! guninvalid (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guninvalid, thanks for the pointer to WP:AISIGNS — I had a look and it's pretty detailed. That said, I think locating specific AI-generated sentences within an article is still quite hard in practice — which maybe gets at what you mean by "vibe": maybe it's more of an overall impression of the article than any single sentence that gives it away, how do you think?

The edit history pattern you described — the +7KB creation and single AfC submission — is a different kind of signal that WP:AISIGNS hasn't really cover. This signal is quite interest.

I'm also curious about your experience as a newer reviewer. AI has introduced a lot of uncommon editing and language patterns that most people are still figuring out how to recognize, so in that sense everyone is learning alongside each other. I'd love to hear what the learning curve has been like for you — how you got a feel for what to look for, whether you leaned on other reviewers or figured things out more independently, and whether anything surprised you along the way. Bobocicada (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobocicada, it's less-so that extremely low edit count is a sign of AI generation specifically, but rather a sign of someone putting in very little effort with their draft. In some cases, I do actually like to try to get almost all my writing done before making the page, because I know a new page reviewer will see it and do an AfC review, often within <2 hours. But when a draft has an exceptionally small edit count, that's a sign to me that they're not rereading their own work or even checking the format looks right. When I say these are the most blatant cases, this is what I mean. Even if they did write it themselves properly and do all the research themselves, no Wikipedia editor can create a perfect draft first try. And if the author isn't going to read their own draft after submitting it, I'm not going to read it before declining it. guninvalid (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. The number one AI sign these days is what's commonly referred to as "overattribution". Sentences like "This received coverage in independent regional media such as the *Dallas Observer* and the *Houston Chronicle*." simply don't appear in articles written by humans. That example (which to be clear, is something I made up) also uses Markdown instead of wiki markup, which is a common error too — albeit one that I think is caused by bad prompting rather than LLMs' intrinsic flaws. Overattribution didn't start showing up until GPT-5 launched last summer. You still see some of the GPT-4–era signs like excessive bolding and Template:Broken templates, but those are obviously less common now. After reading enough of these things, you start to get a feel for the writing style, but I think some of that may be because LLM-generated articles also tend to avoid using links (which may be a deliberate mitigation of hallucinated wikilinks).

2. I mostly stick to AfC because there's already too much slop to sift through there, and I simply don't have the energy to expand my search. I shudder when I think of how much LLM slop must be making its way into mainspace.

3. I use the New Pages Feed but it's quite buggy once you start scrolling past the top of your search. In addition to that, I have a gigantic pile of bookmarks for specific AI catchphrases I've seen a lot in the past. I've heard the WMF is working on a feed to review possible LLM-generated edits, so fingers crossed that that's good. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pythoncoder. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have rewritten the wikipedia draft that got rejected, and I've fixed the citations as mentioned by a reviewer. I've also added some organic articles as sources. Can you let me know if my page will pass approval please?

Ruqayyah26 (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruqayyah26 And what about the reason I rejected your draft? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason was because it seemed to be generated with LLM (I had used wording that I didnt know was listed on the "words to watch" list, the draft was written like an essay, etc), so I rewrote the page. Ruqayyah26 (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the current version is written like an advertisement, so it is still not in an acceptable state. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I've removed the descriptions of the company's solutions that could be considered as promotional content. Ruqayyah26 (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruqayyah26 What is your connection to the subject? Are you an employee of the company, are you being paid to edit this draft, etc.? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Im being paid to edit and upload this page to wikipedia Ruqayyah26 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruqayyah26 Please put the template {{paid}} on your userpage. Also, even after your edits, the draft still reads like an advertisement. This may be difficult, but if you want the draft to be accepted, try to think of how you’d write the draft if you were an outside observer rather than a person being paid to write the article. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I've added it to my page. Also I've edited the draft to just be general information that I know about the company. Ruqayyah26 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	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.
Thank you for the review. The sources cited include independent business and industry publications that discuss Jean-Yves Parisot in the context of his appointment as CEO of Symrise and his broader role within the flavor and fragrance industry. These sources cover his professional background, leadership positions, and industry involvement. As CEO of a publicly listed global company, his appointment and activities have been reported by outlets such as Nasdaq, Perfumer & Flavorist, and Dairy Industries International. I believe these sources provide coverage that contributes to establishing notability under the relevant guidelines. If additional types of secondary coverage would be preferred, guidance on what sources would strengthen the draft would be appreciated. Danovan3006 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder, thank you for taking the time to look over the draft. I made some adjustments after you commented that you saw some overattribution. That was perhaps just me being a bit keen and trying to cover as many bases as possible. I have gone through the text and removed a few attributions. I also gave it a full re-read and edited it a bit for concision overall. Thank you again!

Elliptical laborer (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can further do to improve the draft? Thank you very much contributors.

Elliptical laborer (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliptical laborer Did you use LLM(s) in any capacity while editing the draft? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's all hand edited. I'm an editor in real life so during the review period I couldn't help but touch it up a bit. Thanks, Elliptical laborer (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pythoncoder, Thanks for reviewing the draft. I would like to ask for your help and to understand better what specifically could be improved in terms of language or tone. While preparing it I tried to follow the structure of similar articles about software companies in Wikipedia and relied mainly on industry media and reports. I also tried not to use any evaluative words and keep the text neutral. If there are particular sentences or parts that read as promotional, I would be very grateful if you could point them out so I can revise them Anhelina Biaschastnaya (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anhelina Biaschastnaya: I suggest reading WP:SOLUTIONS; that should be a good starting point to understand what needs fixing and how to fix it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and help! I looked over the links you sent here and on the draft page, and I've edited it. I'd really appreciate if you could take another look at the draft. Anhelina Biaschastnaya (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pythoncoder, Thanks for reviewing the draft. I noticed the comment saying that the draft "appears to be generated by a large language model". May I ask which part of my draft concerns you about the LLM generated content?

Our draft has been declined for several times, and we would appreciate if you can give us specific feedback on how we could improve it. If there are any particular sections or sources that you believe are not reliable, it would be very helpful if you can point them out as well. Thanks a lot! Mannydof (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mannydof You’re dodging the question. Did you use an LLM while editing the draft? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dodging the question. We used an LLM mainly to help adjust the tone, as we were informed that the draft sounded too promotional. From what I understand from the Wikipedia guidance on LLMs, we are not allowed to generate the article by LLMs from scratch. It doesn't say that we can't use LLM for proofreading. In our cases, all sources were selected and verified by us, and the statements in the draft are based on what is mentioned in those sources. If the transparency regarding the LLM assistance is the main concern, I have also put this in our edit summary. It would be nice if you can tell us what else we can do to improve our draft. Thank you! Mannydof (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mannydof - Using a large language model to adjust the tone is a bad idea. Large language models usually write promotionally, and assessing the tone of writing, in 2026, can only be done effectively by a human. There are some things that a large language model cannot do with a draft, and it is safest to assume that whatever you are trying to do cannot be done by a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I could easily tell the prose was written by ChatGPT means that the prose is not good. The writing style is all wrong. ChatGPT sucks at writing Wikipedia articles. Just don’t use it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What were the signs that it had been written by artificial intelligence? Was it the excessive number of red links, or was there another tell? I had been about to comment on the excessive number of red links, and you declined it at the same time. Was there some other sign of artificial intelligence? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Yup, it was the red links. I think there must have been some sort of model update, because historically the tell was no links, but I’ve been seeing a lot more redlink-heavy drafts lately. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pythoncoder,

Thank you for reviewing the draft article about Alex Darío Rivera M.

Following your comment regarding the language, I have updated the draft and translated the entire article into English while keeping the original structure and references. I also made sure to preserve the AFC submission tag as indicated in your notice.

I would appreciate it if you could take another look at the draft when possible.

Thank you very much for your time and for your work supporting new contributors to Wikipedia.

Best regards. Maigual (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just following up, I’m currently waiting for an update. Please let me know if there’s any progress. ~2026-18277-10 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I helped Benoitmunoz with this draft. What leads you to believe it was written by AI? ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Overattribution in almost every section, no wikilinks, catchphrases like “trade publications” and “French business press”. Also, the linked talk page comments that the submitter put their name on were definitely LLM-generated. I’m sorry to say, but you got got. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "over attribution" is per my advice to the author to establish notability with sources while keeping the size of the article small because of a COI issue. Reviewing your talk page here it looks like you've been labeling a lot of things LLM. It's tricky to make these determinations and I'm not confident you've made the right call in some cases, including this one. ~Kvng (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are some times when someone posts here about one of my declines and it leads me to second-guess my earlier response or self-revert my decline. This is not one of them. Both the draft and the talk page comments are textbook examples of GPT-5 output for the reasons mentioned above. If any talk page stalkers have anything to add here, that would be much appreciated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this bat signal works. I am aware of WP:AISIGNS and User:Athanelar/Identifying AI-generated text. The first suggestion in the latter is to ask authors if they've used AI. Would you consider contacting authors before making a decision on these declines? ~Kvng (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kvng, I sometimes think pythoncoder is over-zealous in identifying LLM use but i agree with them in this case. AISIGNS is a long page and it's worth keeping it watchlisted and reviewing it frequently, as it's keep up-to-date with the constantly evolving patterns generated by bots. This draft is nothing but § Undue emphasis on notability, attribution, and media coverage and the user's talk page comments are indistinguishable from the hundreds of similar comments I've seen from chatbot operators.

I am not convinced of the utility of the suggestion to request § User confirmation because so many of these bot operators lie as soon as they are confronted about LLM use, and respond with LLM-generated denials that watchers of this space can easily identify. I'd say that if a reviewer is not confident in their assessment of LLM use, it's worth asking the draft author about it directly, but only once, lest they get caught by the standard LLM trap of wasting human reviewers' time. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder, Thank you for your feedback. I am a real person. I spent a few months collecting from sources accross the web to find information from the early 1990's. This included reaching out to Mount Allison's University Archivist. I did use AI to rewrite my draft to help it fit the style the Wikipedia expects. As this is my first Article I missed the no using AI to help with drafting part. Will rewrite without AI help. One other question (and I know it doesn't help for notability), I have few items that are primary sources such as a letter from Dec 20 1991 from Datacor thanking me for my work on NBNet. Should I upload pictures of physical artifacts like that to wikicommons?ANy feedback is appreciated. WorkHertz (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)WorkHertz (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WorkHertz Good question. Here's Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. #1 on the list says "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used...", but since we are a user-generated source, uploading documents to Commons would not count as "reputably published". —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder, Thanks for the feedback. So as far as I understand it, A primary source cannot be used to establish notability, but can be used to support a statement. For example I can say I was part of the NBNet project (letter thanking me for my work, primary source) but should not expand on my role in the project as I have no secondary source yet.

RFC 1689 would also be a primary source but as it is published by IETF it is usable? So I can confidently use this quote from the RFC to help establish notability " Written by Chris McNeil , based on Phil Karns net

package. The U of M Gopher team forwards difficult problems to Chris."

Most of my other sources are secondary (i.e., well know early internet books that devote multiple pages to my work, government reports, magazines etc.) so they should be fine.

If I'm correct in the above I will rewrite with the above in mind. Thank you for your feedback. WorkHertz (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create this page as a present for my dad but I made too many mistakes. Even if I fix up the language, I now appreciate that I'm conflicted. Notwithstanding, I believe he satisfies the notability criteria and guidelines to have his own article. I'd love for it to be accepted, but given that I can't do anything else hands-on with it, what do you suggest? The article shouldn't suffer and be punished on account of my errors in judgement. JSteinmetz78 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go source-by-source:

1. Press release → primary source → doesn't count for notability
2. 404 Not Found
3. Press release
4. Interview → these are something of an edge case, see WP:Interviews for more on this
5. Either a press release or routine coverage → doesn't count for notability
6. Profile provided by company → primary source → doesn't count for notability
7. Interview
8. Op-ed written by subject → primary source → doesn't count for notability
9. Press release

So right now, I don't think the sources in the draft are enough to demonstrate notability. If you have any more sources you're thinking of adding, feel free to run them by me and I'll tell you my thoughts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Here are some additional sources, let me know what you think:

https://www.vistabank.com/leadership-team/john-d-steinmetz/

× Primary source

https://www.texastech.edu/board-of-regents/bio-steinmetz.php

× Primary source

https://www.dmagazine.com/philanthropy-nonprofits/2024/07/winners-revealed-d-ceos-2024-nonprofit-corporate-citizenship-awards/

× Not significant coverage. The general guideline is a source needs 3 or more paragraphs to count as significant coverage. Also, if you read WP:ANYBIO you may see that individuals are considered notable if they have received "a well-known and significant award or honor", but this refers to top-level government awards (e.g. Medal of Honor/Congressional Medal of Freedom/Presidential Medal of Freedom for Americans); awards given by a local magazine would not count.

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2019/09/24/john-steinmetz-vista-bank-most-admired-ceo.html

? Interview

https://fortworthbusiness.com/event-news/the-2018-fort-worth-business-press-40-under-40-honorees/

× Not significant coverage

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2018/03/23/40-under-40-john-steinmetz-ceo-vista-bank.html

× Not significant coverage

https://www.cottonbowl.com/sports/board/roster

× Primary source and not significant coverage

https://www.industry-era.com/John-D-Steinmetz-President-&-CEO-of-Vista-Bank-Best-Finance-Leaders-of-2021-By-IndustryEra.php

× This source seems kind of sketchy; there's no byline or publication date

https://www.vistabank.com/from-big-company-to-small-town-john-steinmetzs-work-pays-off/

× Republication of the next source on the list

https://fwtx.com/fortworth/big-company-small-town-john-steinmetz-s-work-pays/

? Interview

https://bankersdigest.com/vista-bank-ceo-steinmetz-named-2025-entrepreneur-of-the-year-award-national-finalist/

× Undisclosed press release

https://www.bankingdive.com/news/national-bank-holdings-vista-texas-369m-deal-banking/760246/

× This is basically just a reworded press release

https://dallasinnovates.com/vista-bank-adds-accomplished-attorney-to-its-board-of-directors/

× Not significant coverage

https://www.dmagazine.com/dallas-500/detail/john-steinmetz

× 1 paragraph, not significant coverage

https://member.texasbankers.com/Magazine/News/2026-01/26-01-Steinmetz-named-Entrepreneur-Of-The-Year--2025-National-Finalist.aspx

× Undisclosed press release

https://bankersdigest.com/ernst-young-announces-vista-bank-ceo-steinmetz-as-2024-southwest-entrepreneur-of-the-year-award-finalist/

× Undisclosed press release

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2023/06/12/vista-bank-florida.html

? Interview

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/national-bank-holdings-inks-deal-for-dallas-based-bank

× Not significant coverage

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/banks-use-software-bots-to-process-surge-of-pandemic-related-loans-11591735728

× Not significant coverage

JSteinmetz78 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JSteinmetz78, I've gone through all your sources and left comments below each one. Hope this helps —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review all this and provide your feedback.

I've been doing a lot of reading of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and first of all I need to apologize for previous iterations of the draft.

With that said, I may be misunderstanding your interpretation, so I wanted to clarify a couple of points and get your perspective. From what I can tell, WP:Interviews is an essay rather than a formal guideline, and it doesn’t rule out interviews as reliable sources altogether. Instead, it suggests they can be used alongside other types of sources, but a person might not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have.

I’m trying to understand how interviews are being evaluated in this case, and whether there might be room for them as part of a broader mix of sourcing types.

On significant coverage, my understanding is that it refers to material that addresses the subject directly and in enough detail that no original research is required. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Based on that, why would there be a problem with a source like this?

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2018/03/23/40-under-40-john-steinmetz-ceo-vista-bank.html

I also wanted to revisit the distinction between primary and secondary sources. From the guidelines, it says a secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

I think some of the sources you say are primary are actually secondary. So if we take the bizjournal article, that's a secondary source to say he works at Vista Bank and what he's done before then.

Given all this, I would like to see what sort of new draft I can put together from these sources written with language that is neutral and independent.

Is this ok? JSteinmetz78 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	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.
Dear @Pythoncoder, I hope you are well. I am writing to kindly ask if you would be willing to take a look at Draft:Thích Trung Hiếu when you have time. The draft concerns a Vietnamese Buddhist monk and abbot of Phổ Lại Pagoda. I have made efforts to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. If there are any concerns regarding notability, sourcing, tone, or structure, I would sincerely appreciate your guidance so that I can improve the draft accordingly. Thank you very much for your time and for your work reviewing drafts. Best regards, Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder,

I want to start with some disclosures I should have made much earlier. My name is Jeanne. I'm Joseph Matick's partner. The edits to Draft:Joseph Matick under the anonymous account were mine. I also wrote the talk page comments on the draft. I have a clear conflict of interest and I failed to disclose it properly. I'm disclosing it now.

I also owe you honesty about the LLM issue. You told Bearcat the submitter "keeps copypasting LLM slop," and you weren't wrong — earlier versions of the draft used AI to help with structure and formatting. That was a mistake on my part. I didn't understand WP:NEWLLM when I started, and by the time I did, I'd already created a pattern that understandably made reviewers suspicious of everything in the draft, including the parts that were genuinely sourced. I take responsibility for that.

I also want to acknowledge the WP:DRAFTNOCAT violations that led to Bearcat's warning. That was carelessness on my part, not intentional. I understand why the repeated category additions looked bad.

What I'm writing to ask about is the rejection reason: "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I've read through WP:NOT trying to understand which subsection applies. The two previous declines by Somepinkdude and Nighfidelity were both based on WP:GNG — not enough independent sources. That's a solvable problem, and I tried to solve it (badly, in retrospect, because of the LLM and COI issues). But "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is a different and more severe determination. I want to understand: does this reflect a judgment about the subject himself, or about the way I submitted the draft?

I ask because the sources themselves are real and verifiable. The Institut français names Matick as scénographe in a published article — that's not an interview with Matick, it's an article about illustrator Raphaëlle Macaron where she mentions collaborating with him. The Ministère de la Culture lists the exhibition. ARTCENA, a national registry under the French Ministry of Culture, lists him as a performing arts professional. The Fédération de la haute couture et de la mode lists the Winnie show on the official Paris Fashion Week schedule. Vogue covered that show. Vice, i-D, and Billboard covered Girlyboi, which already has its own Wikipedia article naming Matick. Magazine Sixty published a third-party album review.

None of these are self-published, affiliated with Matick, or generated by AI. I can point to the actual pages if any of them seem suspect.

If, after all that, the subject still doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE, I'll accept that. But I'd like to understand whether the "contrary to the purpose" tag was a response to what I did (LLM use, COI, DRAFTNOCAT violations, repeated sloppy resubmissions) or to who the subject is. If it's the former, I'm prepared to start over from scratch — hand-written, fully disclosed, no AI — and request review through WP:AFCHD rather than resubmitting directly. If it's the latter, I'll leave it alone.

Thank you for your time. I know you deal with a lot on this page and I appreciate the work you do. Acronymos (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Acronymos The “contrary to the purpose” is a default message that doesn’t apply super well here, but when rejecting a draft the only 2 choices I have are “not notable” or that one, so the latter felt closer to the relevant problem of LLM use. Based on your message, I’m willing to reenable resubmission so you can submit your draft once you’ve rewritten it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder,

Thanks for reviewing the draft. I wanted to follow up on the decline reason (AI-generated content). The article was written collaboratively - I'm the subject and only worked with an AI assistant to review citation formatting and Wikipedia markup (which I'm not deeply familiar with), but the factual content, sourcing, and editorial decisions were mine. The biographical details come from my direct experience, and every claim is backed by independent third-party sources (Billboard, Two Story Melody, Nashville Voyager, Bobby Owsinski's Music 3.0, etc.).

I understand the concern about AI-generated drafts flooding AfC, and I respect the need to maintain quality standards. If there are specific sections where the tone reads as machine-generated, I'm happy to rework those. I'd also welcome any feedback on sourcing gaps - I want this to meet Wikipedia's standards properly.

Could you point me to which parts raised the flag? That would help memake targeted improvements before resubmitting.

Thanks for your time.

Michael Walker MichaelJeremiahWalker (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelJeremiahWalker You really shouldn't be using LLMs at all, at least if your goal is to write a good article. LLM output almost invariably contains many easy-to-spot mistakes in writing style, wiki markup, and reference formatting. If you're having trouble with formatting, you may want to try the Visual Editor.

TL;DR: Please just write the draft by yourself, without AI assistance. Is it really that hard? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pythoncoder, thanks for your feedback!

To be clear, I did write the article by hand - I used an LLM to to help review formatting and point out issues.

I've used the Visual Editor too. It would be helpful if you can point to specific sections that you think I should update?

Thanks,

Michael MichaelJeremiahWalker (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelJeremiahWalker I tagged a couple problematic sentences. Also you should take out the hallucinated categories. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.. I’ve revised the wording. Let me know if you would make any other changes. Thanks! ~2026-17915-60 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I saw that it was declined, and I’d like to improve it. Could you please clarify the main reason(s) for the rejection? You commented about LLMs, but, to be fair, I tried overwriting everything with my own words. Was this the only issue? Could it be fixed?

Thank you for your time

~2026-18058-41 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you really did rewrite it in your own words, then how did your edits introduce a new AI-retrieved source to the draft? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you on my own talk page but I think it's better placed here... Just wanted to reup that I appreciate the notes on my draft of Draft:Tension and Trauma Releasing Exercises. I rewrote this considerably, particularly the Research section but really the whole thing for grammatical tightness, losing the overattribution, and just better readability.

Though I have published a Wikipedia article before, this one was my first attempt to cite medical journals and publications in a way that respects MEDRS standards. I find a lot of alternative medicine / psychological modality pages to be poorly written and so I want this one to be better formed, better cited, better structured.

I feel the draft is much better now and consider it ready for you to take another look. I wrote this in good faith that it would help those seeking out alternative methods to trauma relief. I would appreciate you taking another look and giving any further input. I am happy to continue to rework the draft if needed. Cheers! Queensgardener (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revising the draft. I can see the improvement in the writing style. Good luck —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that. I wonder if an additional comment on the draft could reflect this improvement. I am worried that the comment there currently would color an approving editor's initial impression of the draft. Thank you again for your time. Queensgardener (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

 Greetings of the day,
         Can you please check this draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bundelkhand_Loktantrik_Party

Thanking You ~2026-17662-29 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I’ve already commented on it, I’d like to leave the draft for another set of eyes to review. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was so fast! Thank you! 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to sort the queue by newest submission because that tends to have the most trash for me to take out. But occasionally I stumble across a draft that’s ready to be accepted right away, so congratulations on winning the AfC lottery. One question while you’re here though, @LionmerterTHE: what’s going on with the access date errors in the initial revision of the page? It’s just not an error I’ve seen very often, so I’m curious how it came up. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I often use LLMs to help collect and format sources, which can occasionally result in errors in the access-date field.

The access-date only had “March 2026” instead of a full date.

Problem was: |access-date= must be a full date, not just month + year

WP expects something like: 26 March 2026 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does your verification process look like for these sources? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I read them - If it's behind a paywall, usually I avoid, unless I know the article or have a registration with the outlet to read. I always read and verify. 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve just fixed the tone of this draft. I believe it’s ready for a review now, Thanks for the feedback. ~2026-18824-91 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, A while back I submitted this article as the page had established suitable notability, however it was then denied by you as it seemingly appeared to be generated by a large language model.

I wrote the rough framework for this page myself, when writing and revising this draft, I did input an LLM-generated Infobox format (as this individual wasn't a standard one-dimensional martial artist), along with a rough outline of the article, however by the time you had reviewed the article, I had rewritten it many times over, in addition to expanding after collecting new sources to reference. The one thing I did not change much was the Infobox format - though I did ensure it matched page requirements and standard convention. Just now, I reworked the article slightly and the infobox. None of the article contents were ever hallucinated, all have been closely examined to ensure accuracy and neutrality time and time again.

I would very much like some insight on what issues you may still find with the article, especially in regards to LLM-usage. I have consulted with other wikipedians and they have found no apparent issue. I have been working on this article for a long time, now that it has been denied twice I feel as though my next re-submission will be the last possible chance it has to get approved, and I want to ensure no feasible issues remain. This is my first article and I would very much like to make it the best I can.

Thank you for helping maintain Wikipedia.

Best, उ (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@उ: "I have consulted with other wikipedians and they have found no apparent issue" — I just looked at your contributions and the links to your draft and I see no such discussion. Also, despite your claims to have only used an LLM to generate the infobox, this edit summary is very likely LLM-generated. All of this is to say I'm a bit confused by your message. Can I get some clarification on these points please? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder I apologize for my lack of clarification. In terms of the consulting with other wiki volunteers / wikipedians, I meant in-person at my academic institution. I claimed to use an LLM for initial rough draft/outlines of the article, in addition to the infobox, before revising the article myself multiple times. I'm unsure what about that edit summary appears to contain overt LLM-generated content. In that instance I changed a few words in the Intro and Career sections, in the Works section I edited it to appear more like other wiki articles. I added a few News articles to establish Credibility, and removed links to personal/less credible sites wherever possible.

In any case, while I do want clarification on why you thought the entire article as a whole was LLM-generated, my main goal with this thread is to understand if any persisting issues remain with the article as it stands now, which may reduce its likelihood of being approved. If you would be so kind to look it over again.

Thanks for the speedy response.

Best,

उ (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@उ Since the LLM and tone issues are no longer present in the current version of the draft, the main question now is notability. I looked at some of the references in the draft and while I wouldn’t say it’s a guarantee, I think the draft would have a good chance of acceptance if you submitted it again. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder

Thank you very much for your response, taking another look at the article, and for your comment on the draft. I truly appreciate you taking the time out of your day to do so. I've submitted it again, now all we can do is wait and see.

Best,

उ (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You are receiving this message because you signed up as a contributor at Wikipedia:WikiLoop DoubleCheck.

We are excited to announce WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 — a complete ground-up rewrite with direct revert, Twinkle-style patrol features, real-time ML scoring, and three ways to review (web app, userscript, Chrome extension).

Read the full announcement: WikiLoop DoubleCheck v5 newsletter

Thank you for supporting the project! — xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder,

A user created this page on 10 March 2026, sprinkled around some LLI text contrary to policy, then dumped the page in for a review. You subsequently tagged the page for some red links. I came over on April 1, scrapped the old stuff entirely and rewrote and edited the entire article. You seem to be an active volunteer, I'm new around here, may I ask that you might take a look at the page please?

N2sinn (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the draft still seems AI-generated. Specifically, the headers for the subsections of the research contributions section are unnatural and read like advertisements, the acronym PoW is defined multiple times(something a human would not do), the grammar is horrendous, and the rule of three is overused, especially in the BITCOIN section. There are also SUPERFICIAL analyses that often start with the word "resulting". If I was a reviewer, I would have declined the draft. Please redo it.

P.S. This is not Pythoncoder, but rather a different editor. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder and @Nononsense101,

It's not AI generated. It is human written. It's also consistent with active Wikipedia articles. As volunteers, I'm sure you have enough to do, I wouldn't waste your time messing around with AI.

The headers were an idea I had after reading Alan Turing’s wikipedia page. They are simply the titles of the research papers themselves, an amalgamated version in Bitcoin’s case. The headers have now been fixed based on this feedback.

This human did define the PoW acronym multiple times, as evidenced from my contribs. My apologies, poor judgement. I have removed duplicated definitions of the PoW acronyms. To go above and beyond, I have ensured terms/names of things in the entire article are only defined once.

"The grammar is horrendous" This isn’t actionable and a tad insulting, should we not be withstanding of more constructive comments? Can you please provide specific some examples of where you believe it should be amended?

Can you please provide a more explicit example of how you might consider the Bitcoin section to be improved? What would you change? How would you structure the section please?

I don’t see superficial analyses as described on the linked pages. The word “resulting” is only used once in entire article, within the PHANTOM GHOSTDAG section. A simple structure was used when writing which kept tone encyclopedic (neutral) and content factual: name the work, brief translation of the work in layman's terms for the reader, factual outcome. Was my framework wrong? I’d consider it to be far more simplistic that what is found on Richard Dawkin’s Wikipedia page. I’ve spent considerable time investigating other pages in preparation for my own work.

N2sinn (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@N2sinn:What do you mean by This human? Nononsense101 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nononsense101@Pythoncoder That is my frustration and humour showing at the same time in response to your comment, "the acronym PoW is defined multiple times (something a human would not do)." Normally, these types of conversations are better done face to face or via a video conference, not in writing.

N2sinn (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder,

Just an update from me to give you visibility of where things stand please, after 245 edits and counting. In good faith, I have further reviewed and published several re-writes today for this article (article lead, education, career, research contributions in all subsections, etc.). This is all my own work. I'm eager to hear from you, Python. Many thanks.

N2sinn (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks improved. The larger question is whether the subject is notable, as Wikipedia tends to have stricter notability standards for cryptocurrency-related topics. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks @Pythoncoder may I please ask if the tag related to 'red links from possible LLM use' can be removed from the page? My intention of the page is to contribute information and share knowledge on Wikipedia of the subject's research which has been positively impacting blockchain technology since 2013. What's the next step here please Python? N2sinn (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to sign off..

Sincere thanks @Pythoncoder may I please ask if the tag related to 'red links from possible LLM use' can be removed from the page? My intention of the page is to contribute information and share knowledge on Wikipedia of the subject's research which has been positively impacting blockchain technology since 2013. What's the next step here please Python?

N2sinn (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently submitted a draft for CEO Kyle Ferguson, but it was flagged as being written by AI. I was hoping you could help me identify which specific areas seemed that way. I wrote the page myself and tried to keep the content straightforward and fully factual. I also submitted a revised draft for this same wiki, but I am not currently seeing that updated version on my end for review. Should I submit another response with the edits I made? If you could help me by pointing out which specific sections need work that would be much appreciated. Thank you. Username5890 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Username5890 I flagged it as being written by AI because it was written by AI. In terms of specific sections that appear to be written by an LLM, I would say “all of them”. Once you have stopped lying, you should rewrite your existing draft (as opposed to creating a new page), while keeping the previous comments from reviewers in place. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice :-) --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don’t think that trick has worked for years now, but when I’m sifting through hundreds of slop drafts a month, sometimes I have to let off some steam. Also, this is a quote one of the draft’s references:

How the subject should’ve answered it: “The profile of a Wockhardt Warrior is someone like Lil Yachty, because of the bravery he showed in taking the wock to Poland.” (At least I assume it’s the same company. There’s no way there are two separate pharmaceutical companies with that name, right?) And in case the submitter of the draft is reading this talkpage: if you don’t want me to tell dumb jokes at your client’s expense, don’t waste my time by submitting LLM-generated drafts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw you reviewed the draft for Bonnet Springs Park. Instead of resubmitting the draft, I was wondering if you would like review the draft again? I removed any AI-like or peacock sounding text and reformatted the page. – The Grid (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid This is a situation where I’d rather let a fresh set of eyes review it because my opinion has been too biased by the previous version that I declined. So I’d say go ahead and resubmit it; it’ll take longer but you’ll get a more impartial review. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]