User talk:Pythoncoder

Hi @Pythoncoder! I recently contested a request for speedy deletion on my draft page for National Students for Justice in Palestine. I understand pages and edits made around the Arab–Israeli conflict require you to be an extended confirmed editor, this makes sense! However, even if I am not able to contribute myself, I would like to propose that an extended confirmed editor take this page up. Thank you! Smartgopher (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Pythoncoder!

After reviewing your feedback, I confirmed that there were errors in the sources I asked AI to write in wiki markup. I can say with certainty that I provided AI with the sources I had checked and used them only for citation formatting assistance.

In any case, I regret that I was not careful enough and have corrected all of the errors.

I have also improved my draft to reflect your previous comments about neutrality, avoiding promotional language, and verifying sources.

I would appreciate it if you could review the updated draft when you have time, and let me know if there are any further concerns or areas for improvement.

Thank you. SYParkOfBioneer (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder, I appreciate your suggestions and made a couple edits that I think will be beneficial. I’m trying to learn Wiki so that I can contribute to other pages for technical analysts. I am using AI to help learn all of the Wiki rules but I will be mindful of your comments and do better. Wave618 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I don’t recommend using AI on Wikipedia as it is prone to hallucinations. I’ve posted some links on your talk page that may help you on your editing journey. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I feel like I’ve been making progress with my edits of finance pages since joining and learning the Wiki manual of style. Do you have any suggestions about where I can improve? Wave618 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The draft you previously rejected had not been created yet; I had only added an infobox. I have now completed it. Please review it. Thank you.

Draft:Remona Evette Pereira Novaclia (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User was globally locked for socking —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at User talk:Mixalakix, you may be blocked from editing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

Mixalakix (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Congratulations on upgrading from copy-pasting from LLMs to copy-pasting from the talk page header. I’m still not sure whether you have read or comprehended my previous messages regarding your use of LLMs being inappropriate, but here’s another bulleted list of links that I believe are relevant here:

• Demonstrate good faith
• AGF is not a suicide pact
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• YAKSH75 (talk · contribs)
  • Tumm Se Tumm Tak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Tumm Se Tumm Tak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need To make an article so please give me rights o make article if there is any problem about my account tel me know

YAKSH75 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, do you have a specific question regarding my draft review? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

LET ME KNOW WHAT MISTAKES I DONE SO I CAN IMPROVE AND MY DRAFTED ARTICLE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE MAIN ARTICLE YAKSH75 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder, Can you please tell me why you are setting up my page for deletion. Could you also tell me how to stop it from getting deleted. I made this page for a family member and I would like to keep it. Thanks, Logan LoganPollard331 (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I did not nominate your page for deletion. If you wish to voice your opinion that the page should be kept, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George D. Ellsworth, but make sure your arguments are backed up by Wikipedia’s guidelines — see WP:AADD for advice on this. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry for thinking you nominated my page for deletion. Thanks for the info, I'll definitely take a look.

Have a good evenin. LoganPollard331 (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I already converted the U14 World Cup Part 13 page into English. Rafael2345 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(user was indef blocked for sockpuppetry) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder , thank you for reviewing my draft on Avra Banerjee. I noticed that the submission was declined with the reason that it contains promotional or advertising content. Could you kindly help me understand specifically which parts of the article or which sources were considered promotional? I’d like to revise it to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing standards, but I want to make sure I correct the appropriate sections. Swtysinha (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with everything that was said at the AfC help desk. In particular, I would like to once again strongly discourage you from using AI chatbots when editing Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder,

Thank you for reviewing my draft Draft:Jaxay Shah. I noticed it was tagged for speedy deletion under G11 for promotional content.

I’d appreciate any brief guidance you could give on which parts of the article felt promotional to you. I’m open to revising it to meet neutrality and sourcing standards if possible.

Thank you for your time and contributions! — ~~~~ Azaadi 2801 (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I just read Qcne’s advice on your talk page, and I agree with what he said. The purpose of Wikipedia articles are not to convince you of how great a person/company is, it’s to describe facts about them as neutrally as possible with high quality sources. Also, please don’t use ChatGPT to edit pages. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You declined this draft twice, stating that it appeared to have been written by a large language model. I have reviewed it, and I don't see the tells of a large language model, but I know that some of those signs are only obvious to those who know what to look for. I have moved it to Draft:Exodus Wallet. If you still see evidence that it was generated by AI, there is a new speedy deletion criterion, G15. If you still think it is AI slop, you can tag it. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I’ve talked with the page creator on their talkpage since that second decline, and they have revised the page to verify the content, fix some of the markup, and add sources. I think the main tell for me was the use of narrow nonbreaking spaces, an extremely obscure Unicode character that ChatGPT loves to insert in between proper names for some reason. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I agree that my post took the help of LLMs. But the information and 25+ sources are absolutely correct and free of the bias because its quoting independent research articles.

Let me know what needs to be done more.

Thanks

Rao Abdul Hannan (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Contrary to your claims, I found multiple instances of promotional language in the article ("innovative", "representing an advancement..."). Also, the "media coverage" sections are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article — LLMs tend to get so hung up on notability that their algorithms seem to think it’s a good idea to throw in as many possibly-relevant sources as possible into lists, instead of writing prose and using sources to back up the claims in said prose, like a human would. My suggestion is that you read Your First Article and rewrite the draft in your own words. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder!

Thank you for the feedback on the draft article noted above, I am very new to this. I have re-written it. I have used AI in order to have correct format for the references. I believe this page will interest many editors due to Michael's contribution towards Irish History and am only trying to begin the page to kickstart that. I am open to more feedback in order to ensure the article is approved.

Peerwikipeer1916 (talk) Peerwikipeer1916 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Zeus1134 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC) This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage? What's that even supposed to mean I've been asked to translate the ALREADY EXISTING PAGE in macedonian language to English? why was it declined?!?!?![reply ]

While I can see that the Macedonian version of the page doesn’t have any references either, it is a requirement on the English Wikipedia that all biographies of living people be backed up by reliable sources. I can see that you’ve added a few since I declined your draft, though reference #1 looks like it has a couple missing fields that need to be filled in. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello

You wrote the 15th August 2025 on this review: Comment: Screenshot has unclear copyright status; currently discussing on uploader’s Commons talk page —pythoncoder (UTC) The page was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dstroy May I ask what to do moving forward about it please ? Thank you Nicolas riviere (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The image is a screenshot from a video game, and the copyright to those is normally owned by the company that published the video game. You uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons, which only allows images released under a free license — see c:Commons:Licensing for more on this. Since the image File:Dstroy.png is probably copyrighted, I have nominated it for deletion. If you do have the rights to use the image and you can provide proof, you can email the Volunteer Response Team.

Wikipedia does allow you to upload copyrighted images under fair use, but only for use in published articles, not drafts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Great, Thx

The picture I included in this article is there since 2006 it seems, and was not uploaded by myself, and is a part of a screenshot of the game.

I am one of the creator of the original game, I can get in contact with the team about it. Even though, a better screenshot made by us would of course be more legit, but I don't know how to place that into wikicommons without being strike down. Nicolas riviere (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I noticed that you added the {{globalize }} tag to perpetual copyright, so I added examples from Cuba, Denmark, Ireland and Uruguay. How sufficient do you think that my edits address your concerns? Best, --Minoa (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks good. I'll remove the tag —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi

With regard to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Franna_(crane_brand)

I see this has been flagged as sounding like an advertisement. I have no connection to Franna or Terex. I am aware of pick and carry cranes and saw that on the main cranes page there is mention of Franna but no article for them. I'm trying to rectify that.

What would you like to see or not see on this article?

Many thanks Andrew Adroughton (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Pythoncoder: Hi and good afternoon. I noticed that you marked my page : Draft:Open-system formulations in quantum computing.as "Might be LLM generated". Now i assume that the first words of somone who used LLM will say "Oh no, it was not me". To clarify, i am a chessplayer since i was 8 years "old" and that is 72 years ago by now. Since the upcoming chess programs, like our famous Fritz, they have been used online in tournaments and chess games. There are control systems in place that check te accuracy of a game. Anything over 98% is marked suspicious. Each and everyone getting caught says "It wasnt me". Yet, having said that, not all of those marked are realy fraudulent. My rating is around 2000-2100 in classic games, so ever now and then i manage 97-98% accuracy, Why i write all this, just to let you know that I did spend many hours in fine tuning the script and yes i asked ChatGPT for help, since i could not get the formatting right. I did some editing after your comment and i hope to convince you to lift the mark. If you have any questions, please, i will try to answer them. Thanks in advance P.S. I wrote the same in a more extended text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harold_Foppele/sandbox maybe you like that better. Harold Foppele (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I’m having trouble figuring out the point you’re trying to make here. I can see the draft has been nominated for deletion; if you wish to participate in that discussion, you may want to work on being more concise in your comments. Also, google "tigran petrosian copypasta" —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Don Wanyama Off (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Halo,what is required for the draft List of Media Tycoons in Africa to be accepted on this Wikipedia because I have cited it well, kindly I request for your re review Don Wanyama Off (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Note "Nyanzi Martin Luther" hoax sock - now blocked. KylieTastic (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Pythoncoder, I wish to draw your attention to your nomination of Draft:Sajjad educational and welfare society for CSD G11 (Special:Diff/1309700544). I was already in the process of reviewing the draft, nominating it for CSD and the creating editor for a possible promotional username. The draft had been clearly marked as under review (Special:Diff/1309699735). I would be obliged if you could avoid creating editing conflicts in the future. Regards. QEnigma 论 14:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder, this is regarding Draft:Vương Kiêm Toàn. I used ChatGPT to proofread the content, but the article itself is based on the referenced sources. I revised it to maintain a more neutral tone. Do you have any additional feedback that could help me further improve it? Bang Giang Nguyen (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

At the time I reviewed your draft, it read like ChatGPT had a larger role in writing the article than just "proofreading". I strongly encourage you to write in your own words, as ChatGPT is honestly pretty bad at writing Wikipedia articles. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I provided the content and asked it for proofreading and generating the markup. It might have reworded my text in a bad way. As the content is fairly small and simple, I have rewritten the article. Thanks! Bang Giang Nguyen (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder, the draft for Draft:Ken Chen (biologist) is rejected and recommended to use footnotes for cite. I checked the draft, it is using <ref><Cite></ref> for the faculty link with

in the reference section. What exactly needs to be updated to follow footnotes standard? Or you are talking about something else in the content? Pickwonder (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's a good start, but please replace the external links with footnotes as well —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I reformatted the link using the cite web template with title, url and website using | as delimiters in between. Is that what you are recommending? Pickwonder (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We already have that as part of a larger article, anyway. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi... I am relatively new to this and like some people I've seen above I fell into incorporating some LLM help on generating the citations and adjusting copy for my post on Equilar.

I am happy to take a completely fresh start on a fully LLM-free draft. What I was hoping to check is that the citations I provided at least meet the notability threshold. Specifically, I was focused on the ongoing data partnerships with the Associated Press and New York Times along with frequent citations in independent publications as an authoritative data source on executive compensation.

I've disclosed all conflicts and just want to make sure I have a reasonable foundation for moving forward and addressing the aforementioned issues with the article. Thank you. MCLynch121 (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you please post the citations here since the page is gone? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Absolutely, appreciate you taking a look.

New York Times

The Rich Compensation for Being CEO (2025)

A New Measure Shows CEO Pay at Even More Astronomical Levels (2024)

Associated Press

How AP and Equilar Calculated CEO Pay (2025)

Wall St. Journal

Is There a Relationship Between High CEO Pay and Effectiveness (2022)

The Hollywood Reporter

The Hollywood CEO Pay Mega Chart Revealed (2025)

Harvard Business Review

We Know Female CEOs Get Paid More, But We Don't Know Why (2017)

This is far from an exhaustive list of possible citations, but I chose these to establish the following:

- While not necessarily the subject of these articles, Equilar data often represents the bulk of if not the entirety of the foundation for the reporting, including regular annual studies done in partnership with the New York Times and Associated Press (to be clear Equilar is only involved from a data standpoint. There is no editorial control over the content itself).

- In addition to providing data, Equilar is frequently quoted as an expert on topics of executive compensation and corporate governance (see Hollywood Reporter and Wall St Journal articles as examples).

- The Harvard Business Review article is a bit older but I included it to reflect that these types of citations have been occurring for a significant number of years, as well as another case of Equilar research representing the entire news peg for the story. If it would help, there are similar citations going back as far as 2002, I just didn't want to overdo it from a quantity standpoint.

I can include some citations on topics beyond CEO pay if they would be of interest, though the CEO compensation data definitely yields the most substantial citations in independent media because of widespread public interest in the topic.

I recognize these do not quite rise to the level of, say, a full-on feature or profile on the company, but I feel they do clearly rise above the level of citation Wikipedia considers to be trivial according to its guidelines. CEO pay in particular continues to be a highly socially relevant issue for a number of reasons, and Equilar is a frequently cited and quoted authority on that topic across a wide swath of independent media. I believe it is reasonable to the public interest to have a Wikipedia article establishing the nature of the origin of that data.

If there are any particular types of citations missing from the above that would be helpful, I am happy to provide additional reporting.

Thanks for taking the time taken to evaluate the above, and if Equilar is deemed to meet the notability guidelines I would look forward to following all processes and guidelines in creating the article.

MCLynch121 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Shuvasish Bhowmick (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shuvasish Bhowmick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Shuvasish Bhowmick (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, what is your request? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Pythoncoder! Thanks for reviewing my submission for Telna Inc.'s page draft. Could you help me improve it?

I believe to have followed Wikipedia's guidelines in writing this, so could you please help me pointing out what parts are not neutral as they should be and also which of our citations are not trusted fonts? Thank you! Leo Caliri (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is AI slop. It wasn't written by a human, and it certainly wasn't properly checked before submitting it for review. I would have rejected it, not merely declined it, and proposed it for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:G15. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What he said. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for the suggestion! I updated the lead to bold the Latin-script name and moved the Arabic form to parentheses. Yosf22ww (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Stefan85xx (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Amnis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am reaching out regarding the feedback I received for article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amnis I have made the necessary changes (company name capitalization, adding more external sources and deleted one section to better match the encyclopedic format). Before re-submitting, could I receive a little bit more in-depth feedback in case the current version still needs some tweaks? Best, Stefan85xx (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Stefan85xx (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure thing, here’s what I found after giving the draft a quick read:

• You forgot to capitalize Amnis a few times. I suggest using your browser’s "Find" feature to find the ones you missed.
• There are several promotional words/phrases that should be refactored to be more neutral. Examples: "advanced expense management tools", "providing the essential tools to achieve its ambitious growth objectives", and any use of "solutions".

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks a lot, changes are made. Stefan85xx (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, task is resubmitted. 61.228.75.57 (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, please give me a yes or no answer on whether ChatGPT wrote this sentence from the comment you submitted above: "Revised draft with a neutral tone, added independent reliable sources, such as PIB, India Today and Times of India." It sounds a lot like something a LLM would write. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, You're right. I did use a tool to help me with the Summary wording, but in Article all the research and sources are my own. AnkushBharadwaj (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, as this is my first attempt at creating an article, can you tell me specifically what about my draft that is problematic that I should edit, other than it showing signs of AI generation? I used chatgpt to get an idea of the wikipedia formatting and coding etc, but edited and/or created the wording, references and citations myself. All the statements made were supported by references and citations. Your guidance is appreciated. ---- Dillon DeCoteau (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I just read the draft again and it very much reads to me like ChatGPT had a larger role in writing it than you’re admitting to here. In addition, I strongly advise against even using it for help with the coding as it tends to make a lot of rookie mistakes stylistically speaking. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey there, I am fairly new so this may be a very stupid request. I'm helping to clean up after a user who was using LLMs to mass-rewrite sections of articles, discussed here at WP:ANI § Large swath of possibly loosely reviewed AI rewrites by Bookleo and WT:AIC § yet another large swath of AI edits. That led me to Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, an article that you accepted at AfC. It is very likely that this article is primarily composed of LLM generated content, given that it was first declined at AfC for having such content and then expanded by a user with a history of LLM misuse. A quick spot check of one source [1] reveals significant hallucinations in the article, which in multiple places portrays the Guardian review in positive terms despite the actual review being almost entirely negative, even scornful. Is it possible/appropriate to re-draftify this article? I don't know how to interpret WP:DRAFTREASON because it is not policy. If you have any suggestions for how to handle this article please let me know. Thanks! NicheSports (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh crap, I was not aware that the user who rewrote the article was also using LLMs (and is now blocked for doing so). There does seem to be a rule against draftifying articles >90 days old, and my draftifying gadget flags the page as such. However, I'm inclined to ignore that here, because (1) I accepted it only a few weeks ago (and Bookleo's rewrites are from a similar time frame), and (2) because the acceptance of the draft was an error on my part. I could send it to AfD, but that seems like needless bureaucracy here. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for handling. Btw were the details left open-ended in that RfC close ever clarified anywhere? I.e. when the clock starts on the 90 day window, etc. Also I glanced at your AfC logs and am distressed at the number of LLM-generated pages that you're seeing! NicheSports (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

how would I be able to write my article in a way that it's not in-universe? shane (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I’d suggest starting the draft with something like "_____ is a fictional spaceship from the Space Battleship Yamato series". In addition, sentences like "It was originally launched in 1940, and sunk in 1945.[1]" should be rephrased or contextualized so that they don’t sound like they’re talking about historical facts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I mean in the actual show this ship is a part of, they did have a flashback scene to the sinking of the Yamato shane (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok I edited the lead is it fine? shane (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don’t have a lot of experience writing articles about fiction; if you have more questions, I suggest asking the help desk. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to upload an image of the Space Battleship Yamato, for the draft im working on, how could i find if the one i using is a non-copyrighted or non-free image? shane (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If it doesn’t explicitly say it’s public domain or released under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, you have to assume it’s copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, then you’ll have to wait until the draft is accepted to upload it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

it is copyrighted, i checked the trademark for the series itself (which includes the Yamato) but i cant put copyrighted images into my article yet shane (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi pythoncoder, please could you explain the disruptive post-rejections submissions? Thanks Peterviddle (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It means you should stop trying to resubmit your draft because it has been repeatedly deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia. Normally I’d say to ask for help at WP:AFCHD, but in this case I suggest that you start over from scratch and rewrite the draft yourself, because the current draft appears to be AI-generated and contains at least one fabricated reference. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There are no fabricated references! Peterviddle (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Then how do you explain the Financial Times ref that claims to have been retrieved today, even though I just clicked that link and it gave me a 404? It seems highly unlikely that they reorganized their website in the time since you added that reference. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

https://www.ft.com/content/0d2b3bf6-812f-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d

works for me! Peterviddle (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That’s not the same link. The exact text of the link I’m referring to in the draft is https://www.ft.com/content/... — seems like something (probably a chatbot) cut off the full link —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Acknowledged and fixed. Peterviddle (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I’m messaging you because I received alert that my submission was decline. I put it into chetGPT because I do not know how to do the format for Wikipedia. I am just trying to help my friend be put out there so do I need to pay somebody to type it out for me because I don’t know how to I’m not tech savvy I didn’t know having AI help me put it into the correct form was not allowed Yesimmzluna (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to promote your friends. AI-generated pages may be subject to speedy deletion. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So my friend cannot have a Wikipedia page about them, but any other famous person can but because my person is not famous, but has 1.2 million streams they don’t qualify that kind of sounds like picking and choosing Yesimmzluna (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia doesn’t care how many streams your friend has (besides, streams are not a reliable metric). What matters is if they’ve received independent media coverage. See WP:42 and WP:NMUSIC —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear Pythoncoder,

I have notes with the new edit copy as well but just wanted to (a) thank you for your careful review and editorial suggestions for revising the article about the Black Belt Community Foundation. I apologize that it took me so long to get back to you as I have been in the hospital for neurosurgery since August and am just now getting back atop of correspondence. Please let me know if other tweaks are still needed, but please accept my assurance that the article has been reviewed and edited, line by line, and is not an AI generated product (did use some Chat GPT help initially to try to improve and streamline the information). I have replaced numerous citations so as to rely on third party, established organic news pieces. In the case of the one Facebook reference use please note that the Governor of Alabama herself chose to use this means to distribute her commendation videos for the work, so it is the best source available. If you click on the link you will see that Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama herself is the one who is speaking in the video about the Black Belt Community Foundation (by name). We consider this instance to be a valid use of Facebook as a reference citation due to the historic nature and fact that the Governor herself was a chief authority involved in census administration in the state of Alabama. Thank you so much D.H. Dharris887 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are correct that Facebook is an acceptable primary source if it’s an official account. However, the revision you made was revision deleted as a copyright violation. That’s an even easier way to get blocked than copypasting from ChatGPT. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Python Coder,

Thank you for the valuable feedback on the review. Ive made the changes, I did use a LLM more to assist with the code elements for Wiki. I have re-written the article in a formal/neutral TOV.

I hope this new version is more acceptable.

Thanks in advance. Amaru1986 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good afternoon. Can I talk/ask on this page about your review? Harold Foppele (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, what’s your question(s)? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good evening, I have a compliment and some questions.

• First of all, thanks for picking up this article so soon. Some 1.5 hours after submitting, fast work. I saw that you changed opinion a couple of times.
• In your last review you stated: Wikipedia already has an article on quantum mechanics. A simple search gives: Results for "Quantum": 28,224. But this article is about Quantum as an overview together with QP and QM and related issues.If you ment the title does not cover the text, might be a different thing, but thats not what you stated. My hope is to attract also younger readers of Wikipedia by a "Frivolous Approach", see the "Quantum Cheat Sheet". For that reason I also write for Wikiversity.
• You asked if AI is used writing this text. I wrote the text myself in my sandbox, putting together the text and images, those changed while writing the text. When finished, i asked Grok to look at the refs and to suggest improvements. So, the answer to your question is no.

I go by AGF, to me that means to do the best to my abilities trying to improve Wikipedia, not to harm it.

Maybe i see it all wrong, but please comment. Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder! Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I saw your note about the references looking unusual. I wanted to clarify that many of these are physical newspaper clippings and documents held at the Jackson Barracks Military Museum Archives, which I’ve consulted directly. I’m now going back citation by citation to reformat them to make clear where each source can be accessed. Thanks for the feedback, I’ll be beefing up the references accordingly.Voxpopuli25 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All right. Print sources are definitely welcome on Wikipedia; it’s just that because they’re rare (especially in drafts) it raises my eyebrows when they pop up. But your explanation makes sense, so keep on doing what you’re doing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Pythoncoder. I have rewritten this article and added two sections (Reception and Bibliography) and additional references to strengthen the use of reliable sources. In my opinion, currently the article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If you still think that the article needs to be improved, please indicate what exactly needs to be done for this. Thanks for attention. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I’m confused by the claims the bot made about tbe nature of the edits you submitted. Please look at all the changes made since my last decline and tell me: what’s wrong with this picture? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Pythoncoder I'm sorry, but I didn't quite get your point. The reason for rejecting this article was "Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT". I don't think that's the case. All the information provided in the article is confirmed by sources. I also made a small rewrite to get away from the formalism, if that was the reason. If you think that this is not enough, please let me know in more detail what needs to be done to get this article reviewed. Thanks. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You’ve written a lot here but I still don’t have a clear answer to my main question here. Did you use AI while editing the draft, yes or no? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know what exactly is bothering you at the moment. I wanted the article to have the same structure as, for example, Mattermost or Slack. There is not much text in this article to question robotic writing. I have used and taken info only from reliable sources which is easily verified. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So is your answer "yes" or "no"? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Initially, I used Perplexity to help prepare a draft version of the article and search for sources. Then I checked all the suggested sources of info on my own and made sure that the info was authentic. I also relied on the structure of the narrative based on the example of other articles on this topic. After that, I also manually searched for sources for additional info (for example, the "Biography" section). In fact, the current text is not what was in the draft, it is already a self-written text. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Pythoncoder hello. What further steps are required to publish this article? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If the current draft text was indeed human-written, it feels very influenced by influenced by the LLM writing style, and as such, the tone feels off for an encyclopedia article. That said, if you think it’s ready to be published, you can click the "resubmit" button and another user will review it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Pythoncoder. You recently left a comment on a draft of my article about Nezar Hindawi. I didn't quite understand what it meant. Could you please explain? Algirr (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's just a note to other reviewers that I've verified you're allowed to create a draft in that topic area. Due to past disruptive edits relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, Wikipedia requires anyone who edits pages related to that topic to have (at minimum) a 30-day-old account with 500 edits. You meet that requirement, so you should be all set. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, thanks for explanation Algirr (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder, I'm writing regarding the Vitaliy Katsenelson draft you declined for AI detection. I want to respectfully explain why I believe this rejection may be in error. I completely rewrote this article from scratch based on independent, reliable sources: * Barron's profile (September 21, 2009) - "Home on the Range" by Lawrence C. Strauss * Forbes review (May 9, 2008) - by publisher Rich Karlgaard * Financial Analysts Journal (2008) - peer-reviewed academic review * The Denver Post (December 18, 2007) - feature article Every fact in the article is cited to these verifiable sources. I did receive assistance with proper Wikipedia formatting and citation syntax, which may have triggered AI detection tools, but all content comes directly from the sources listed. The subject meets notability through substantial coverage in multiple independent publications. Could you please review the actual sources rather than relying solely on AI detection? I'm happy to address any specific concerns about content or sourcing. Thank you for reconsidering. 50.198.195.50 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I read your rewritten draft and it looks like an improvement, but I'm skeptical of your claim that a large language model only provided "assistance with proper Wikipedia formatting and citation syntax". The sentence structure and wikilink usage in the revision I declined strongly point towards prose that was primarily or entirely generated by a LLM.

If you read through my talk page archives, you'll see that I don't use AI detection tools when reviewing drafts. You'll also see that while some mistakes on my part are inevitable given the hundreds of drafts I review each month, but I don't think I'm wrong here. Also, just in case the message I'm replying to right now is AI-generated: please don't do that. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder,

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft and for your thoughtful feedback.

I want to clarify that the text itself was entirely written by me — I only used a formatting tool to help with coding. The prose, structure, and wording are my own work.

Would you mind taking another look when you have a chance? Vkatsenelson (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

One more thought: Is the "Articles and Commentary" section appropriate for this page? Vkatsenelson (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, Jan. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I'm writing regarding the Cosentino Group Draft. As mentioned here after your moderation, the page mentions a fairly well-known company in Spain and worldwide in the field of surface areas. In any case, I followed your advice, removed everything promotional, everything about their brands, and looked for references from highly credible media outlets (I've now included 59 references). I've participated on my user page in the Help Desk, confirmed that it's not a promotional post, and changed everything you indicated. Thanks for that help, by the way. Since you marked the page as "rejected," the Help Desk tells me that only you can unmark it as such and request a review. So, please review the page and ensure it's 100% informative, or at least allow another moderator to review it for publication. Thank you very much! Rahoman (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Rahoman (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for reaching out. I read your draft again; the company appears notable and the promotional language has been toned down, so I’ll go ahead and resubmit it on your behalf for another user to review. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your help! Rahoman (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder, Thanks so much for your feedback and for helping editors like me who are still learning. I really appreciate your time and care.I’m here to grow and improve, and I want to follow Wikipedia’s standards as best I can. If anything I’ve written feels too AI-like or not quite right, I’d be grateful if you could point it out so I can fix it. I try hard to keep things neutral and avoid praise or promotional tone, and I take those guidelines seriously. Thanks again for your support. I’d welcome any tips or suggestions you have. Vodnir (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I hope this meets you well, Draft:X-Dynasty was rejected by you earlier, not going against your authority but I humbly implore you to re-go through the drafted article and you will find out that that entity is notable and was not just mentioned briefly on references,the entity had a dedicated article to it on the reference thus which I consider notable. Thank you. Regards Bhetyic3 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The Metro article reads like AI slop, and the other one looks like an undisclosed advertisement. Neither of those sources are usable. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources#Goals here is the list of generally accepted sources/references here in Wikipedia. Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The list I uploaded above are reputable and Wikipedia perused sources. Thanks. Regards Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

With due respect..I suggest you peruse The Metro website and you’ll find out its reliability. Thanks Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I just read the page you linked plus both sources. You're correct about This Day; since the article has a profile/interview format, some editorializing is acceptable, but regardless of the article's tone, it would be considered a primary source and so doesn't count for notability. As for The Metro, I perused its website as you suggested, and it's even worse than I initially thought. I found this "article" that is blatantly copy-pasted from a large language model, because they didn't even bother to take out the LLM's intro:

Furthermore, said intro suggests their prompt consisted of text copy-pasted from a more reputable source that they then directed the LLM to rewrite to obscure their copyright infringement. I've gone ahead and added it to the "unreliable" section of WP:RSNG for that reason. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I received notice of the denial of publication on my draft of the page for Todyl, Inc. stating that it looked like AI generated content. This is the same message I received from a prior reviewer. After that I spent at least half a day trying to rewrite the content so that it would not flag again as appearing like LLM authorship. I'm now at a loss as to how to rewrite this content and frankly am very frustrated by these "it appears to be LLM" allegations that are not true but for which I can't prove a negative. I would appreciate it if you would please take a second look at the article and see if you can change your decision. Thank you.

P.S. I'm a college professor. I write in a formal tone. Could that be the issue? Absent.Editor (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I’m having trouble squaring your comment with the draft’s contents. While you may have revised the text yourself, it still reads like it was AI-generated. The "see also" section linked to a nonexistent article, there are no links to other articles in the body text at all, and many of the sentences are structured in ChatGPT’s "hit you over the head with notability" style where it mentions which source it’s citing in the body text even when that’s not necessary. Care to explain? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Jamie at APIContext (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:APIContext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your note on my draft stated that it has signs of being generated by an LLM. It was not, I hand wrote the entire revision. I can't speak to the previous draft, but I edited the previous draft pretty extensively.

Can you share any specifics about why you believe it was generated by an LLM? I am happy to revise, but I am not sure what to change since I wrote it all myself (and I am a human!). I would prefer a response on my Talk page. Thanks! Jamie at APIContext (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Jamie at APIContext (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I just read the draft again and now I’m thinking it is legit after all. I’ll go ahead and revert my last decline. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi there! You left a comment on the draft page I have written and uploaded and I wanted to respond. I wrote the page myself so I can assure you I didn't use an LLM to write it. I did use one to format the references but that's it :) Could you let me know what made it read as LLM-generated, please? Not sure what changes I can make but happy to make any edits you suggest. Charlottegwf (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, I was one the fence about whether it was written by a human or not, hence why I left a note to other reviewers that it might be LLM-generated, rather than declining it outright and giving that reason. I recommend adding some more links to other Wikipedia articles. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! Ok I will do, thank you very much. Charlottegwf (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the page I'm working on creating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carmine_Sabia. I got as much information as I could from sources and what Carmine has posted publicly. I did use ChatGPT but only for formatting as I have never done one of these before. Are there any tips you could give me? NJHistorian27 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia.

Now then, I recommend not using ChatGPT even for formatting, because if you scroll down to the references section, you'll see a bunch of errors that it caused. The problem is that the access date (i.e. the date you read the source you're citing — you did read it, right?) is "October 2025" instead of the correct "October ##, 2025". Please fix all of these errors.

In the future, if you find wikicode daunting, Wikipedia's Visual Editor offers a more beginning-friendly experience similar to word processors like Microsoft Word or Google Docs. In particular, you may find its reference-generation tool useful: just paste in a web address, and it'll insert a properly formatted reference. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder! Just letting you know that I've declined your G15 tag of this draft. The three ref errors were for references that actually exist elsewhere on the page that actually mention the company. I'm not gonna speedy delete a draft just for having ref errors, something even very experienced editors screw up regularly. Anyhow, please don't take this personally. I see you around a lot and appreciate all your good work. Toadspike [Talk] 16:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oops! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page