User talk:jlwoodwa

I'm not a chatbot. (I don't think I am, anyway.)

Hi there, this is PeakerPan. Nice to meet you, and thank you for your diligence in making Wiki a better place. An article I wrote, Peak Records (Switzerland), was recently marked by you as possibly having been produced by a large language model. Could you please clarify what gave you that impression? Being compared to artificial intelligence is flattering, but I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. I would love to resolve this matter so we can remove the tag. Thank you for your time. PeakerPan (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You used AI to write your "I didn't use AI" message? Really? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Since I don't understand your reasoning on this issue, I would appreciate it if you could provide some light on your thinking. Many thanks. PeakerPan (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you tell me to what extent you have used AI to edit Wikipedia (if at all)? My explanation depends on your answer to that. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As you were the one who insisted I used AI to write the original article — and then, quite bluntly, accused me of using it again to compose my polite response to you (which you requested, inviting discussion) — I would have thought the onus was on you to explain the reasoning behind those accusations. However, if you're unwilling to do so, I’ll go ahead and answer your original question.

No, I didn’t use AI to write the article or my response. I did, however, use it to check my spelling and general syntax. I’m happy to report it found only minor issues, so perhaps I am AI myself after all! I also used it to help format the <ref> tags — that kind of repetitive markup is, frankly, boring. I then went through and manually checked the links to ensure they hadn’t been garbled (as some of them had been).

I hope that satisfies your curiosity. I’d now appreciate it if you could clarify what, specifically, led you to tag the article as AI-generated and caused you to be accusatory rather than constructive. I would also appreciate you removing the tag, unless you have a valid reason to keep it there. Thank you. PeakerPan (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This editor has a problem with personal attacks it seems. 107.122.173.95 (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

i just tried to do something good for my friend this is so dissapointing without article up i dont know how to edit it Pantiru Marius (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@PeakerPan Being wrote an article is chance of 100% to 75% can save, (estimate by me). Joshua Kharis 2014 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Joshua Kharis 2014, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Could you clarify, please? Thank you PeakerPan (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Chatbot or not? Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mary Joy 20 Marcial. No, I'm not a chatbot. I'm simply courteous and articulate. Though unable to express it openly, I assume @Jlwoodwa assumed that to be proof of artificial intelligence. :) PeakerPan (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@PeakerPan Because I think your text is like an AI Joshua Kharis 2014 (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Dude I don't use AI.. 2601:804:201:1B00:3585:C76:F451:F064 (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi

You are correct- there is some ai content added to my original piece- but the intent was to use as a secondary opinion/ source. The original opening opinion on my article is original to myself and I DID MENTION that I was including ai content to expand on original concept with it's extensive knowledge base "as a expert consultant" . I am not an expert in the field and the ai was able to present supporting mathematical analysis and theory extension to potential real life application. As the feedback was rather extensive- it would be impractical to type out in my own words. I feel that Leaving out the acknowledged ai content would greatly diminish the potential human value of this theory. Ai is intended to expand human insight , knowledge base and advancement of humanity- otherwise why expend billions of dollars in developing it. I recommend that Wikipedia consider allowing ai as being part of a discussion IF there is acknowledgement by an author that a specific part of supportive text is ai generated.

With further consideration however- there may be an confusing issue for your service as I had included both a "recommended reading" list as well and a "reference list"- it would probably be best to consolidate both.

So- could you perhaps delete the original submission so I can resubmit with these needed revisions? Smalltime33 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

"Opinions original to yourself" are no more acceptable on Wikipedia than the use of AI as a source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes what has already been said in reliable sources, and nothing more. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Puk Recording Studios

Hi! I saw you added an AI generated tag to the page I just created. I have literally been spending the last hour checking references from books I found plus already mentioned articles in the danish page! Unless there any particular and specific accusations, I'd like for you to not make assumptions.

Thank you, best - Itscookiemaster (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagging an article with {{AI-generated}} is not an accusation or assumption. As the template documentation states, it is intended to identify articles that need extensive examination because they appear to have been generated using an AI system. Puk Recording Studios has many WP:AITELLS, which should in any case be cleaned up even if they are not from an AI. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Itscookiemaster 2600:1004:B185:7F5D:0:45:5806:CF01 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

June 2025 AfC backlog drive award

	The Working Woman's Barnstar
	This is awarded to Jlwoodwa for accumulating more than 75 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Keira and Krish Arora page

Hello Jlwoodwa,

Please accept my apologies for this intrusion. I’m not sure if I’m permitted to reply to your message on the Keira and Krish Arora page. I’m the mother of Keira and Krish Arora. I have outsourced the job of creating this page to an American content writing company. They have confirmed to me in writing that they have not used AI in generating this article. I can confirm to you that all the citations and references on this page are authentic. I personally provided these citations and references to this company. Please can I request you to review this page at your convenience. I look forward to your valuable feedback. Any decision that you take will be fully acceptable to me. Thanks for considering my request.

Krarora2014 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're allowed to reply on Talk:Keira and Krish Arora, but here works too. First, if you've paid someone to write a Wikipedia article, you should read WP:SCAM. Besides that, given that their undisclosed paid editing is in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use, I don't think I trust them to be honest about whether or not they've used AI. I've tagged the article with {{undisclosed paid}} and someone else will probably look it over soon. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Re-evaluation: Not AI-generated, rewritten regardless

Hi @Jlwoodwa,

Thanks for taking the time to review this submission. I’m writing to respectfully challenge the basis of the decline, which cited "AI-generated content" and related quality concerns.

Before making any changes, I discussed the draft with a volunteer from the English Wikipedia help channel on Libera Chat (https://web.libera.chat/). They confirmed that the original submission did not qualify as AI-generated garbage and that they did not see any hallucinated sources.

That said, I have now fully rewritten the article again, section by section, to increase compliance with Wikipedia’s editorial standards.

Here’s what’s been done: - Rewrote the entire article in a neutral, human tone with no promotional or speculative language. - Removed or revised any phrases that could be read as editorializing or extrapolation. - Cleaned and reused named references properly (e.g., herald2020, inkslingers) without duplication. - Ensured every claim is directly tied to a reliable, verifiable source. - Presented all controversy strictly as reported by media, with no conclusions added. - Added internal Wikipedia links (e.g., Zimdancehall, Zimbabwean music, Enzo Ishall) to address the orphan issue.

There is no AI hallucination, no unsourced content, and no promotional tone. The article now reflects only what is verifiably supported by coverage from sources like The Herald (Zimbabwe), Nehanda Radio, Zim Morning Post, Zimbuzz, Showbiz Zimbabwe, and others.

I would appreciate a re-evaluation of the current draft based on its merits. If there are any remaining issues, I'm fully open to addressing them.

Thank you Jesawhite1 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about Draft:Teemak? The version that I reviewed, as well as the current version, have many instances of *Markdown italics* and **bolding**. This Markdown syntax is a well-known AI tell. Please be honest about your use of AI; it is not forbidden on Wikipedia, but must be disclosed. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jlwoodwa,

Thank you for following up. You're absolutely right to flag the presence of Markdown-style formatting like *italics* and **bold**, and I appreciate you pointing that out clearly.

To clarify: yes, I received formatting and structure support using a tool (ChatGPT), but I have personally reviewed, rewritten, and verified all the content for neutrality, citation accuracy, and Wikipedia compliance. I also worked closely with volunteers from the English Wikipedia help channel on Libera Chat (https://web.libera.chat/), who guided me through best practices and confirmed that the substance of the draft met standards, despite earlier formatting issues.

I’ve now gone through the entire article again and replaced all Markdown-style syntax with valid Wikitext (italics and bold). You can view the corrected version live in the draft. There are no AI artifacts, no hallucinated facts, and no unsourced claims.

I acknowledge the support tools used, but I’ve taken full editorial responsibility for ensuring every sentence is grounded in reliable sources and complies with WP:NPOV and WP:V. I hope the current version can be reviewed on its actual merits, and I’m very open to further improvements if anything still falls short.

Thanks again for your time and attention.

Jesawhite1 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the July 2025 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 16–17: Housekeeping phase (we are here)
• July 18–22: Discussion phase
• July 23–29: SecurePoll voting phase
• July 30–c. August 3: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from July 18–22. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your vote total during the election.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time. This phase took approximately four days during the October 2024 election, but could take up to a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the July 2025 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Townsend & Wall

The article Townsend & Wall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly referenced for years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 4 months. Fails WP:NCORP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in the question & discussion phase of AELECT2025

I'm certain many others feel the same way. I appreciate your putting yourself forward, answering questions (including mine) with candor, and demonstrating BOLD while still maintaining AGF. Thank you, and good luck to you in the next phase. We've certainly learned more about all the candidates during the last few days. BusterD (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Andre🚐 20:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! jlwoodwa (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Congratulations Jlwoodwa! I am pretty sure that you'll become a great administrator. Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
• Congrats Jlwoodwa :). Best of luck. Sophocrat (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
• Congrats! 94 admin actions already?! Ophyrius (he/him
  T • C • G) 12:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Your new garb! Hope this fits. When you get bored of scrabbling down the back of the sofa to find the most apt block message, there is a nifty drop down menu that some kind person put in my monobook. ϢereSpielChequers 17:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Cuarto River notibility

Hi jlwoodwa I am writing the article for the American Rio de La Plata Expedition as led by Thomas Jefferson Page. The Expeditions two aim was to map the the Rio de La Plata estuary and the surrounding rivers of Uruguay and Parana for commerce, and conduct various scientific studies for the Smithsonian institute.

I am currently in the research section of the article, but the Cuarto River just recently came up in my research. I would ask that at least for now, you hold off on your proposal to delete the article, as I believe it may hold some significance for my article.

If you are worried about me not finishing the article please do not be, I created a topically similar article 1840 Fiji expedition. The article took a while to create, but I got it done. I am also happy to share with you other articles I have worked on and the current status of that specific sandbox as well.

Thank you for your help and hard work in making Wikipedia better. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on that project. I did not propose that Cuarto River be deleted; I took the {{notability}} template (which was added by another editor) and gave it a |geo parameter, so the template would link to the specific notability guideline and place the article into Category:Geography articles with topics of unclear notability. Adding this parameter can actually help avoid deletion: the SNG link lets people know the expectations for this kind of article, and the more specific category lets people browse through specific subjects that they're interested in improving.

If you've come across more coverage of the Cuarto River in your research, could you add those sources to the article, or to a {{refideas}} template on Talk:Cuarto River? It doesn't take much time; even a bare URL in refideas is enough for someone else to take it from there. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi thank you.

I already have and will continue to do so as my research continues.

I will notify you when my research is complete, but it may take a while. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

MAB is back

They're attacking User talk:Magnolia677 with yet another new IP, 91.132.48.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Might be a good idea to semi protect the page for a few days given the severity of this wave of attacks. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like someone else blocked this one. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Review : Paul Grassi

Hello, my uploaded page was denied because it thinks I am the subject. While I do know the subject, we are not related or close friends. I know him from school and wanted to upload some pages of alumni. 68.196.224.163 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you Grassip78? If so, then you need to change your username, as it is currently misleading. In any case, Draft:Paul Grassi was declined not because it seemed to be an autobiography, but because it did not show that Paul Grassi meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for biographies. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Infoganda

The article Infoganda has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 15 years. Tagged as a neologism for 14 years. Tagged for Notability concerns also for 5 months. Appears to be original research from watching a single TV show.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Talkback

I see you've made admin actions since, so just in case you have pings turned off, I've got a question for you on my talkpage. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

“AI chatbot” detected in My Edits, That's a Mistake

Hello,

You mentioned my edits on the Muhammad Iftitah Sulaiman Suryanagara page, which were generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using similar technology). That is a mistake; the edits I made were clear language, with the help of the Ministry of Transmigration's Public Relations team.

Please restore my edits. If there are any parts that need to be corrected, please let me know which sections need to be revised. Ayuandin (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "with the help of"? Are you part of, affiliated with, or working for the Ministry of Transmigration? jlwoodwa (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

What I mean is that the edits I made and the article I wrote were approved by the person concerned, but that does not mean that I am affiliated with the Ministry of Transmigration.

However, I requested approval and confirmation that the edits I made on Wikipedia could be approved by the person concerned. Ayuandin (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

If you are in contact with the subject of the article, and getting their help, feedback, or approval before publishing, then you have a conflict of interest. That does not demonstrate that your additions cannot be AI-generated or promotional.

It is a mission rooted in unity, growth, and inclusion—values that have guided Suryanagara throughout his life. Though his roles have evolved, from platoon commander to policymaker, Muhammad Iftitah Sulaiman Suryanagara remains steadfast in his commitment to serve Indonesia with integrity, vision, and humility.

This should never be added to any article, but especially not one where you have a conflict of interest. In the future, please follow Wikipedia's rules for editing about subjects that you have external relationships with, including using edit requests instead of directly editing the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

{{tls}} Regardless of who wrote it, I agree that "This should never be added to any article". It is hopelessly self-serving WP:POV. DMacks (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then I will try to revise the article to make it more neutral. Ayuandin (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

A baton for you!

The admin baton

Per ancient tradition, it is my great pleasure to pass on this baton to you, as Ser! did to me. It serves as a reminder that, despite dramas petty and grand, we work together to build an encyclopedia. Wait a second, Baton Rouge ... Baton ... Rouge; oh no we're part of the cabal now! Well anyways. Enjoy it and then pass it on to the next AELECT admin as soon as you can! Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I have quickly passed it on to Smasongarrison. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kleene algebra with tests

Hello, Jlwoodwa. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Kleene algebra with tests".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

"He who does not keep peace shall lose his hand."

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

AfD procedural fault

Hi there, I noticed this edit on the AfD log. By the time I saw it, there were standing !votes to redirect, so I restored it and am letting the discussion run its full course. If there are procedural faults with a nomination, please be sure to close the AfD discussion in tandem with clearing the log. Or alternatively, if assistance is needed with this, feel free to drop me a line, and I'd be happy to help. Regards, Left guide (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

My edit summary was not referring to DWF's nomination (which didn't exist at the time; check the timestamps), but rather the nomination I had deleted after someone had created it at the request of ConcernedDKfan. That version contained only a brief explanation:

On behalf of User:ConcernedDKfan, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Request:_James_Underdown.

followed by a quote from ConcernedDKfan. Since it had not received any !votes when ConcernedDKfan was blocked as a sockpuppet, and the "nominator" expressed no opinion on the article but had merely copied the rationale from WT:AFD as a procedural matter, I considered it to fall within G5's scope. After deleting the nomination, I removed the redlink from the AfD sorting lists it had been added to.

The current nomination may have been partially caused by the sockpuppet drawing attention to the article, but the rationale is DWF's own, so there is no WP:PROXYING issue. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, the links and explanations are very helpful, and it makes sense now, thank you. Left guide (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Catastrophically evaporating planet

On 11 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Catastrophically evaporating planet, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that some exoplanets are evaporating catastrophically? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catastrophically evaporating planet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Catastrophically evaporating planet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Congrats on the mop!

I just wanted to stop by and say congrats. I know you'll do good things with this privilege. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

About page Dollia

Hi i think you have misunderstood or an mistake to add ai tag at article Dollia, i have explained further details at my talk page too. Thank you Lanceloth345 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WHERE IS MY A FAZENDA 16

HEY WHERE IS MY A FAZENDA 16 HE DOSEN'T NOT COMPLETE!!!! @A Fazenda 16 AdibRetard18 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't tell what you're talking about. Could you explain further (and without yelling)? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

sock

Two more: DinkBle1277 (talk · contribs), JerlyGonns (talk · contribs). If I see these again in the future is there an SPI page I can report them to? tony 01:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SksohiToruroutooras66. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa See also the very recent history of the WP Sandbox tony 01:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Your contribution does not really help as I wrote I was going to add more later.

x Rouncival (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You flagged my draft as made by an LLM but my citations are all correct. nothing is hallucinated.

Hello, I make sure all citations are correct. I spent hours confirming this actually as it was my first time. I think you made a mistake. I used chatgpt to help me get the format of the code correct. I did not use it to produce hallucinated citations. Please check yourself, they are all valid to what I am citing. I appreciate your prudence but you made a mistake. Nycwiki1101 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not flag or decline it; it remains in the AfC queue and will be reviewed at some point. I just sent you a talk page message letting you know to be careful when using ChatGPT on Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

AI?

Hey, I wanted to create a page for the Garth Iorg Memorial Baseball Association, however, my request has been flagged as AI generated.

Please get back to me, this took me a long time. Miller7393 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The draft has multiple fictitious references, which are common in AI-generated articles. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have ensured that none of the references are fictitious, can you tell me which one you believe to be fictitious? Miller7393 (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

How have you ensured that none of the references are fictitious? Did this process involve, at any point, clicking on the link? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, believe it or not, I not only clicked on the links in the references but also read the article in there entirety, this is how I got my information. Miller7393 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe, considering that two of Draft:GIMBA's three references (with URLs) are dead-on-arrival 404s. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Not for me, links work fine Miller7393 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you email me a copy of the NYT and ESPN sources you're using? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

ESPN and NYT should not be geoblocked. I'm pretty sure they are lying. Sohom (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing on the Wayback Machine. Highly unusual for such high-profile news sites as NYT and ESPN. - ZLEA ^T|C 04:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Sports,_Government_of_Bihar

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review the article. I believe I have addressed the issue you mentioned, so the tag may now be removed. Please let me know if any further improvements are needed Yogiin (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times citation is still a 404. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed the issue and add relevant source Yogiin (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your review. I believe the issue has now been resolved. Kindly have a look and let me know if anything further is required Yogiin (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I wasn't the creator of this article, but...

I recently made some edits to a page (Developer experience) that is now nested under User experience. I wanted to highlight that Developer experience is a totally different domain to User experience, and it doesn't really make sense that it lives in that page. I do agree that whoever created the content on the original Developer experience page may have used AI, but I don't think the page shouldn't exist. Can I just create a new one from scratch? Emcgee55 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Strange loop (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Strange loop (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G6

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank

thank u, unfortunately that IP is an IP that is causing a lot in the Italian edition of Wikipedia, thank you for banning it Amirzat (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

On your recent view on Tetri Durga Mandir

Thank you for your suggestions. I ve decided to inspect the page and remove every hallutiation or unreliable sources from that pg. Sometime we do make mistakes Biharedits89766 (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Accused of AI?

Nope, I didn't use that. Please recheck and repost my edits. I only used AI to assist with spelling mistakes. Theashleet (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You wrote:

These accolades and reviews reflect the critical and commercial reception of Skeletá. Documenting awards, chart positions, and notable live appearances aligns with Wikipedia’s standard practice of including verified achievements for major album releases.

That looks like unreviewed chatbot output to me, but either way it doesn't belong in an article. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely does lol

Why wouldn't accolades and reviews not belong in an album article? LOL That is crazy, do you listen to music? Theashleet (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but an argument that things belong in an article does not belong in an article. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

What? Re-read that and try again. That made no sense, m8t. Theashleet (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

And again, I said I used it only for spelling mistakes. Sorry that is a hard concept. Theashleet (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's what you think you did. But I think you did not adequately review the AI's output. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, man. Theashleet (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Accused of AI?

I notice this isn’t the first time you’ve raised concerns about experienced editors using AI to create articles. As I mentioned on my talk page, the article on traditional Igbo marriage is based on a topic I’ve studied thoroughly, which inspired me to write about it. All sources come from reliable and verifiable references, mostly academic articles and journals recognized in cultural studies. I’ve read them carefully to ensure an accurate understanding. The citation errors flagged by the system occur because I manually added each citation with its DOI, so the URLs aren’t always automatically included. The bot simply corrected that.

I appreciate your intention to help keep Wikipedia a place with verifiable and reliable information. However, these kinds of deliberate accusations don’t fully align with that goal. I would encourage you to be a bit more cautious in the future, for example, by first checking articles that include URLs directly copied from AI sources. Indeed, AI tools generally indicate that the information comes from them as the source. Thank you! Igallards7 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I took a random statement, The bride typically wears a brightly colored blouse and wrapper, often made from George fabric or lace, complemented by a head tie known as gele or ichafu. and neither "wears a brightly colored blouse" or "made from George fabric or lace" or "complemented by a head tie known as gele or ichafu" were found in the cited sources. Additionally, This multi-step process involves various customs and rituals that formalize the union between a man and a woman, emphasizing family involvement, cultural heritage, and communal celebration reads like WP:G15-eligible unreviewed LLM text, since nobody besides LLMs (and that includes people with a poor command of English) writes prose simply because "Marriage emphasizes family involvement and cultural significance" is a truism and conveys nothing new to the reader. Sohom (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you didn't see the video from the source. Of the many sources I consulted, like this, CNN seems more reliable than a site specialized in clothing, just because of its journalistic perspective. Anyway, you can easily search the internet for text, images and videos about it, and if you speak English you can describe what you see. Now if you want to copy-paste that is called plagiarism. Igallards7 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Although of course, I think AI can't even watch videos and photos. Igallards7 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

AI can't even watch videos and photos - Except they clearly can, there are a thousands of multi-modal (or transcription-oriented) models on the internet. And I did watch the video and there is still no mention of the sentence I referenced above. Marriage has different purposes and meanings across cultures, and such an emphasis is not universally present., give me one example where a "traditional marriage" is not "culturally significant" or "does not involve family environment" (outside of eloping or similar sudden, non-standard weddings). If you believe it is in the video, please point to the timestamp so others can verify.

Additionally, I still feel like you are still using AI to reply to me as evidenced by your vague statements like This is discussed in detail in the relevant academic literature, which examines historical, anthropological, sociological, and other perspectives on the topic. and Anyway, you can easily search the internet for text, images and videos about it, and if you speak English you can describe what you see. which are sentences that anyone who was not using AI to communicate would have been able to avoid saying. Sohom (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

This is what I mean with the last sentence. Igallards7 (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the question in the opening paragraph, I would note that this reflects your interpretation. Marriage has different purposes and meanings across cultures, and such an emphasis is not universally present. This is discussed in detail in the relevant academic literature, which examines historical, anthropological, sociological, and other perspectives on the topic. To say "conveys nothing new to the reader" is to ignore this reality and context. Igallards7 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Sohom has already covered most of why I thought the article might be AI-generated; I want to respond to the other part of your message. You say here that I made a "deliberate accusation" and on your talk page that this "does not reflect good faith", and I fail to see how this describes anything I've done. Do you think that it is impossible to use AI in good faith? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your accusation is deliberate because it clearly indicates the use of fictitious references, and I'm proving that the references aren't fictitious. It's simple: you have doubts because the academic sources were manually added using the DOI, but once I explain what's happening, those doubts should be dispelled, because we're all acting in good faith, right? Igallards7 (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I still don't see how that makes it a "deliberate accusation", but alright. Anyway, I didn't say you used fictitious references, and I said nothing about a DOI. I said to be careful when using AI because it tends to produce fictitious references. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

jammu and kashmir

as a resident of jmmau and kashmir and the recent elections I have provided data best of sources i have used newspaper and things I have seen with my eyes thank you Trinabh2334 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Kariofili deletion for "Unreviewed LLM-generated content"

Hello, I'm unsure what gave the impression that the article was written by an LLM or AI? It was used to review grammar and spelling, but not for the creation of the article or any information. Tulaberdanka (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You cited:

• "Greek Traditional Weapons". Hellenic Army Museum. – the URL does not work.
• "Flintlock Gun (Kariofili)". The Metropolitan Museum of Art. – the URL is for the Met search page, not a collection.
• Papadopoulos, Andreas (1980). The Arms of the Klephts. p. 77. – I could not find any evidence that this book or its author exists.

Additionally, the article had sentences like Its robust design and often lavish decoration reflected its dual role as a practical firearm and a display of a fighter's prowess and wealth., with many AI tells. An AI-generated article having multiple nonexistent references means that it was not given adequate human review, making it eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G15. jlwoodwa (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for pointing this out. As I said, I used LLM for checking grammar and spelling and must not have seen it added somethings as well. I wont make this mistake in the future, thank you. Tulaberdanka (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Infobox pigeon breed/cat

Template:Infobox pigeon breed/cat has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Nick Carroll page accused of AI

Hi @jlwoodwa. Please reconsider your AI generated tag on the Nick Carroll page. I did use AI to help with some of my expression, but only minimally, and there is no unsourced content, no hallucinated 'facts' or sources, and no promotional tone.

I would appreciate a re-evaluation of the current draft. If there are any remaining issues, I would like to address them. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!

From SuperHamster and SuperGrey, 05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.

Nomination of Sr Pelo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sr Pelo 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/Sr Pelo 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.

Cameremote (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Reda Chaouch

@Jlwoodwa:, Would you be able to draftify Reda Chaouch? I never realized that it was proposed for deletion until when it exprired. Liz was the user who deleted the expired PROD but when I posted for another expired PROD she deleted (Tony Pham) on her talk page I saw you draftified Tony Pham so figured I could directly ask you. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa:, please see above, if you arent able to its all good. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Das osmnezz:  Done jlwoodwa (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Fourteen seconds

Thank you for your work tonight. Fourteen (!) seconds from account registration to block on an LTA has to be some kind of record, no? :) --tony 04:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Jay Johnstone

Hi! I saw you labeled the text of my article Jay Johnstone (artist) as problematic and that there are fictitious references that need to be removed. I checked all the references and I think all of them are correct. I did employ chatgpt for stylistic use (as I am not a native speaker), to shorten text and to generate Cite templates from the references I provided. But I didn't notice anything incorrect. I will happily correct it but could you please be more specific, what is wrong? --ElwingNinque (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

{{AI-generated}} says that the article may include hallucinated information or fictitious references, not that it definitely contains the latter. One problem I noticed is that Jay Johnstone (artist) § Personal life is cited only to https://jaystolkien.com/about-jay/, which doesn't support any of the statements in that section. I personally recommend not using AI for this; the skill and effort required to make sure the AI has not introduced a serious problem is often greater than that required to simply do it yourself. If your writing has grammatical issues or similar, a human editor will eventually come along and copyedit it without introducing hallucinations. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. You're right about the claims in the Personal life section. I knew these statements were based on the sources and not not hallucinated nonsense, but it was not in the one that was cited there. I checked it and added the correct references to that section, so I hope it is now correct. I admit this proves what you said, that it may take more effort to correct it afterwards than to write mark the citations sentence by sentence manually (Although I can see similar problem happening even without the use of AI if I am rewriting it and reordering sentences while writing the article). But I will certainly be more careful about this. ElwingNinque (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23 § CryptoSanta until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

"Being a Rock Star" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Being a Rock Star has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23 § Being a Rock Star until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

General query

Hello, Jlwoodwa,

I am hoping that you might be able to answer a query I've had. For the past 3 days or so, Wikipedia User categories have been emptying out for no particular reason. You can see what I'm talking about by scanning the past few days of Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. This category generally has about 100 empty categories in it but it now has over 400 empty categories. It's very unusual to have a lot of User categories in this Empty category list. I think someone is tinkering with templates but I just want to be sure that we don't delete hundreds of categories that are then going to be needed to be recreated when someone reverts a change on a template. Do you know what is happening? Thanks for any insight you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I may be the guilty party. I modified Module:Userbox to prevent Template pages from being placed in User categories by the |usercategory= parameter. The relevant discussion links are this lonely one from 2023 and this multi-issue one from 2014. As far as I know, templates should be in template categories, not User categories. As far as I can tell, the reason the categories became empty can be explained with this example:

1. Nobody is using Template:User_degree/BGS
2. Template:User_degree/BGS assigns |usercategory=Wikipedians with BGS degrees.
3. Template:User_degree/BGS used to be the only member of Category:Wikipedians with BGS degrees.
4. When I removed the User-space categorization code, the only member of Category:Wikipedians with BGS degrees was removed from the category, leading to an empty category.
5. It takes a while for pages to be null-edited by the job queue, sometimes days or weeks for widely-used templates and modules, so categories may come trickling into the empty category page for a while. Most of them will begin with "User" or "Wikipedian".

I'm pretty sure that everything I did was according to relevant guidelines, but I am open to feedback. Sorry for creating this extra work, and thanks for monitoring the empty categories and being suspicious of a sudden large influx. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S. If it's any consolation, I have shot myself in the foot at one of the reports I monitor as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

An Internet Archive search shows that Category:Wikipedians in Seaside, California was empty as of February of this year, so maybe we are just now catching actually empty categories. BD2412 T 00:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Empty aside from the template, that is. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that no editors were using the template itself? BD2412 T 01:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't technically empty ({{PAGESINCATEGORY}} returning 0), so it wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories, and so it wasn't deleted. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

That Seaside category wasn't empty. It had a template in it. I removed the code that put userbox templates in user categories, so then the category emptied (went from one member, a template, to zero members). – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Happy page mover anniversery

Its Lido (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive
On 1 October 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog and to reduce old nominations. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed. Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Adirondack Camp wikipedia page submission.

Jlwoodwa - thank you for your attention to my page submission for Adirondack Camp (see my Sandbox). You mentioned it seemed to be generated by a LLM. I did use an LLM for creation of the page. However, I believe it is accurate and well written. Adirondack Camp is an important, historic summer camp that has been recognized as one of the oldest in America. It was founded by one of the earliest leaders of the American Camp Association and has been in continuous operation for over 120 years. The New York Historical society has recognized it as one of the oldest camps in the country.

I would like to understand more specifically if there are particular issues with the page that would disqualify it. I read the page in detail myself and felt it was both accurate and non-promotional in nature. Is it possible to provide any more specific feedback to help me improve it? I can try to make changes myself, but don't want to change things for no reason.

Can you provide any specific comments?

Thank you for your assistance in helping to improve my submission. Kbedell (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Much of the draft is either unsourced or sourced to the camp itself; statements like strong tradition of alumni engagement, influence on the summer camp movement is significant, celebrating the camp’s diverse community, recognizing exceptional leadership and character, etc., should have an independent source or be removed. jlwoodwa (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Cluebot

I noticed you sent a last warning after the bot reported after three warnings, so I was wondering, do you think the bot should report after four? It's been after three for as long as I can remember... ~Lofty abyss 15:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't realize that the bot was meant to report before the "final warning". Many kinds of disruption can be blocked after fewer than four warnings (and this was probably one of those cases, upon reflection), so I don't think it's a bad design. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

A bear for you!

Cmrc23 has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for helping out with those editors! I wasn't sure how to handle them, I'm glad there's cool hardworking folk you around Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 21:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Recent speedy deletion

Regarding this person, I'd argue that it's worth just blocking them as NOTHERE considering it was a blatantly transphobic userpage, albeit a hard to understand one. (Also posted to AIV, but I was also curious if there was a reason you chose not to block, hence my reaching out.) Perryprog (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, the main reason is that transphobia pisses me off and I try not to make nontrivial admin decisions when I'm pissed off (as opposed to trivial ones like applying U5). Thanks for reporting them to AIV. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's very understandable. Thanks for clarifying. <3 Perryprog (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)