User talk:Esculenta
Add topicYou are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
April 2026
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may be related to you. The thread is I.Mahesh and other editathon contributors. Fermiboson (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm told you've already disclosed AI use in the past. If so sorry for the duplicate but clearly some cleanup is still needed so your participation and help would be appreciated. Fermiboson (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Updated/amended both articles. Esculenta (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please respond to the more general concerns on the noticeboard. Fermiboson (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Updated/amended both articles. Esculenta (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Close paraphrasing
[edit]Hi again Esculenta. I've been reviewing some of your recent contributions, and in addition to the LLM-use concerns raised by others, I'm concerned at the amount of close paraphrasing I am seeing, which often seems to go beyond facts into stylistic arrangement. Some examples from Songam Cavern:
- Source :
Consisting of a trunk and dozens of branches, it exhibits indescribable scenes in over ten sections including Kuanmun, Phokpho and Kiam.
- Your text:
The cave consists of a trunk and dozens of branches, and its scenery is presented in more than ten sections, including Kuanmun, Phokpho and Kiam.
- Source :
Overall, Songam Cave is a geoheritage of high conservative significance because of its geological and aesthetical value.
- Your text:
Songam Cave is a geoheritage site of high conservation significance because of its geological features and the aesthetic value of its speleothems and underground karst landscape.
- Source :
Only some parts of the main tunnels are open to access among the many pristine branch tunnels which continue to be the habitats of specific invertebrates and bats.
- Your text:
Only part of the main cave system is open to visitors, while many branch passages remain closed and continue to provide habitat for cave-dwelling invertebrates and bats.
This is concerning, regardless of whether AI was used, because the closeness of paraphrasing can be a copyright issue in come cases, and the mimicking of exact phrasing of sources causes me to have concerns about whether the sources have been read and understood and whether consideration has been given to due weight or to organizing the information in the article into a coherent presentation. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 20:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Use of AI-generated images on Wikipedia
[edit]Per Wikipedia:Image use policy, Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace, especially... in technical or scientific subjects...
Am I right in thinking that some or all of the images you included in the Lichen biogeography article were AI generated? And if so, can I ask you to remove them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've just noticed you are blocked: I'll do it myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive
[edit]| Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive |  |
| June 2026 Backlog Drive:
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?
Interested in taking part? You can sign up here. | |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive. | |
The article Cladonia floerkeana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
page created using AI, only significantly edited by creator, violation of WP:NEWLLM
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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. DraconicDark (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
The article Nemotron has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/RfC
[edit]Hello, Just wanted to thank you for bringing forward our voice with that vote. You were the only one who made sense there.
I was blocked for userdraft and Sandbox LLM drafts. I was using LLMs fairly after reviewing them properly. I didn't know NOLLM policy applied to userdrafts and sandboxes and that's why I was blocked.
I didn't expect wikipedia to he this much conservative with LLM. Mohit Dokania (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Because most editors who use LLMs create all sorts of problems with sources and information which isn't even in the source. Something which is repeatedly shown to be causing errors is not something the wiki community are happy with, for obvious reasons. Even if you are using it in your sandbox, that means you have intent to go live with it in the mainspace. If editors use it in their sandbox I think there should be some leverage for editors who are checking the sources before they go live, but I guarantee most editors won't use it responsibly and aren't like Esculenta so I can understand that ruling. I do believe that AI is the future of Wikipedia editing and the site runs the risk of becoming obsolete at some point if it doesn't fully embrace it but it's too early to fully accept I think given the massive problems it is causing. The technology needs to become far better at writing encyclopedia articles and overcoming the phantom sources and information before the average user can be trusted with it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
September 2026
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
- Where is the case file for this, Izno? I can't seem to find it in the SPI archives, but I may just not know how to navigate there. I can't find anything under the claimed other account, HunkyPunk, either. And that account's two entire edits are on Hunky punk, so that's not helpful for figuring anything out. What prompted a Checkuser check on that account in the first place considering those edits? What sort of technical evidence would fall under that considering the just two edits, solely IP information? Are there additional accounts involved, perhaps, that wasn't noted in the block reason that I'm just missing? SilverserenC 18:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- No, there are no other accounts at least at the time of check yesterday. Checkusers will have access to the information you want to know. Not all checkuser investigations are spawned from SPI. Izno (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- So, what prompted a Checkuser check in the first place, competence from the account? As far as I'm aware, Checkusers aren't allowed to just run a check on any account they want to because they feel like it. Are all new accounts allowed to be checked solely because a sockpuppet is suspected? Because that would basically allow CUs to claim sockpuppet suspicions on any and every account, particularly any newly made ones. SilverserenC 18:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Special:SuggestedInvestigations identified the connection. You may review documentation on the system at mw:Product Safety and Integrity/Suggested Investigations. Izno (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- So, what prompted a Checkuser check in the first place, competence from the account? As far as I'm aware, Checkusers aren't allowed to just run a check on any account they want to because they feel like it. Are all new accounts allowed to be checked solely because a sockpuppet is suspected? Because that would basically allow CUs to claim sockpuppet suspicions on any and every account, particularly any newly made ones. SilverserenC 18:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- No, there are no other accounts at least at the time of check yesterday. Checkusers will have access to the information you want to know. Not all checkuser investigations are spawned from SPI. Izno (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)