DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Pythoncoder

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Userpage Talk Contribs News Sandbox User Scripts All Subpages


Stak Mark Mirdita page for approval

[edit]
Stop trying to make fetch happen. It's not going to happen. Repeated attempts to make fetch happen may result in a block.

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

Dear Mr Pythoncoder,

I am aware there are no references, but the only source was from that book, from Dr Pirraku. The reason I created the wiki page is because there are no sources other than the book itself, which is not being printed anymore. Please approve my page, I assure you, people have verified it is all true. I know it may not seem true to you, but it is true and I implore you to please approve it. There are no sources other than ones I cant reference - because they dont exist online. Please approve it, please, its going to be the only record. PLS

Knowledgelover1871 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we do things on Wikipedia. If there is no verifiable evidence of notability, then there is no need for a Wikipedia article at this time. guninvalid (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is verifiable evidence, but it is inaccessible, so I wrote the page so everybody has the story. Please just approve the page, its fine and there is need for a wiki article. There will never be a time, because all the evidence is physical and I just digitalised it, soooooo, please approve it Knowledgelover1871 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to use print-only sources in articles; however, right now, there is only one source used for the whole article, which is not enough to demonstrate that the subject is notable. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other sources other than that one book. The subject is notable, it is history, history of a family, history of a nation, trust me, it is notable, I can have an array of people tell you it is notable, that is why a historian wrote about it, Dr Pirraku, he has a wiki page though. Please just approve this page, it doesnt hurt you, just please publish it, I really want to contribute. Knowledgelover1871 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgelover1871 “Trust me, it is notable”… “It doesn't hurt you, just please publish it”… that’s not how Wikipedia works. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please please please approve it. I do care how Wikipedia works, but I can't reference anything and I need this to be a page. Please, approve it, it doesn't hurt you, this is like torture. Knowledgelover1871 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you need it to be a page, you're going to have to publish it somewhere else. Please also note that you are required to disclose a conflict of interest with regards to the subject matter. guninvalid (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I publish it on Wikipedia?? Thank you, but where do I publish it where everybody can see it? I'll fill out a conflict of interest. Knowledgelover1871 (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As we have told you repeatedly: if you don’t have multiple sources, you can’t publish on Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publish it anyway please. Who will know/care? Knowledgelover1871 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should probably be closed for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. guninvalid (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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]

Draft of Avi Hiaeve

[edit]

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]

Draft:The Final Fix

[edit]

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]

Big Sandy Heritage Center Museum

[edit]

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]

Comments left on my Moebius Syndrome Awareness Day draft.

[edit]

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]

List of Angry Birds video games

[edit]

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]

Draft:Michel Germain

[edit]

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]

Draft: Dennis J. Yamashita

[edit]

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]

Request on 05:37:25, 19 December 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Sanaulhaqqazi

[edit]


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]

Recheck on Draft:Stephen Ramsey

[edit]

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]

Submission declined for Institute of Advanced Radiosurgery (IRCA)

[edit]

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]

Recent draft rejection

[edit]

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]

Mark O'Leary

[edit]

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]

Mark O'Leary

[edit]

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]

Mark O'Leary

[edit]

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]

Draft:Orhan Tanrıkulu

[edit]

Feedback

[edit]

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]

Draft:Quince (company)

[edit]

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]

Draft: Jones (Entertainer)

[edit]

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]

Mark O'Leary

[edit]
OP was indeffed for account sharing

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

Hi, happy new year. I'm assisting Mark with his wikipedia entry. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you Mark O'Leary 44 (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared, please create your own account or you are likely to be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for your SourceHut draft page comment

[edit]

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:
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!

 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]

Re-submission declined

[edit]

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]

Page moving

[edit]

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]

Draft: Omkhar Arasaratnam

[edit]

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]

Your Articles for Creation review on Concepción de Buena Esperanza

[edit]

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]

Had some assistance with my Draft

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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]

December 2025 AfC backlog drive award

[edit]
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]

Punk

[edit]

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]

About your feedback on my Draft

[edit]

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]

Thanks for reviewing my submission

[edit]

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]

Regarding the COI/Paid Editing flag on my account

[edit]

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]

Is this guy an AI

[edit]
As they'd say on ye olde internet, (USER WAS BLOCKED 48 HOURS FOR THIS POST)

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

I reviewed this guy’s edits and contributions, and he’s “reviewing” a large article at a pace that would require reading 5 minutes of content every minute for 4 hours straight. I’m not a genius, but that seems really fishy. - Please respond and open discourse if you are a human... DylanDaBaer (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DylanDaBaer No, they are not. – LuniZunie(talk) 16:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in what I wrote where "No, they are not." makes sense. DylanDaBaer (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The section title. – LuniZunie(talk) 16:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I said "guy" you said "they" you are a hallucinating AI DylanDaBaer (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A statement like this is nothing more than an opinion something I thought was not allowed on here DylanDaBaer (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's factual
  2. Who told you opinions were not allowed on talk pages?
– LuniZunie(talk) 16:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DylanDaBaer Of all the things I’ve been accused of, this is one of the most eyebrow-raising. One look at my talk page should tell you all you need to know regarding how I feel about generative AI. What I’m seeing here is that you’re upset that I declined Draft:Meriton, Inc. for being LLM output and now you’re making a number of arguments that don’t make sense. I suggest you drop it, and then focus on rewriting your draft. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Xiaomi sound pocket

[edit]

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]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
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]

Draft:Kasai Rex

[edit]

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]

Draft:Audio Denoising

[edit]

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]

References for an artist bio

[edit]

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]

Top AfC Editor

[edit]
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]

Draft-sachin Lokapure

[edit]
This is not going anywhere. The draft is not going to be accepted in its current state, as it fails WP:WAWLLM, and the submitter seems to not comprehend what they're doing wrong.

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

i removed LLM plz suggest me or help to edit dont reject article directly plz Meta34552 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Meta34552 No you didn’t —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
made changes see Meta34552 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
sir plz give me last chance for resubmit article Draft sachin lokapure plz i write article my own words ok with reliable source plz last change give me Meta34552 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not buying it. There is a MAJOR gap in coherence between what you’ve written here and what you’ve “written” in Draft:Sachin Lokapure. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sachin_Lokapure see this
i done plz read written in own words plz suggest any changes Meta34552 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think I'm going to say here? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think I'm going to say here? what mean this i am talking you i made changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sachin_Lokapure see this and reply Meta34552 (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft-sachin Lokapure

[edit]

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]

Draft - Jack Denst

[edit]

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]

WTF?

[edit]

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]

Unexplained Podcast page

[edit]

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]

Advice on Getting Page Approved for EverythingBranded

[edit]

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]

Page declined for chat gpt usage when it wasn’t

[edit]

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]

Style / credibility concern Draft:Lofogo Sarour

[edit]

Nomination of Ripio for deletion

[edit]
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]

Regarding page "audio cleaner"

[edit]

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]

Regarding the AI-generated tag on Draft:Selcan Doğruöz

[edit]
[edit]

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]

Bywater article

[edit]

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]

Feedback

[edit]

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]

Concerning Draft:Martina Dimoska

[edit]

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]

Improvement of Draft:Majed Al Tahan

[edit]

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]

Discussion Around Stratos Jets Page Rejection

[edit]

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]

Discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026

[edit]

 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]

Re Draft:Delaware Riverkeeper Network

[edit]

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]