Hi @Jay8g: Why did you remove bare url maintenance tag for the Buchanan article when all the refs are bareurls? scope_creep^Talk 05:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep, please read the documentation for the bare URL template, or WP:Bare URLs. Specifically, "If a URL is accompanied by any other information, it is not considered bare.", and "Any method showing more information than is present in the URL itself is not a bare URL." If you don't think there is enough information, you can consider {{citation style}}. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the second time in three days that folk have asked me to look at the documentation. The docs are 20 years out of date and are shit. A bareurl is anything that doesn't include a website name, publisher and author and location, at the minimum to find it. More and more complexity is being added in to the web and modern site are chok full of different folk working on it, so a simple url and another data item is not enough by a long way to find the information. That url [1] on the Cathy Marie Buchanan in 20 years time will be in archive and will be invisible and will be impossible to find. I know that from experience; already it very hard to impossible to find certain references in modern articles to update to the references in place. You can't find them. So they are still bare urls. scope_creep^Talk 06:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you use templates in ways that go against their documentation, it doesn't make sense to get mad at people for removing them. As I mentioned, there are other, more correct templates you could use, or if you have a specific outcome in mind (as it appears you do), you could always just edit the references yourself to make them the way you want rather than trying to rely on other editors to read your mind. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you helped me with some of the citations with a draft I'm working on (Mathias Splitlog), and I tried to indicate a "thanks" from the revision log, but maybe the thanks went to the bot you used? and then I couldn't really sort out how to use the WikiLove appreciation thing... anyway, thank you for the assist! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Citation Bot is a great tool for formatting references. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

Thank you for your recent massage. As I don't yet know all the "intricacies" of Wikipedia, I apologise if my answer doesn't follow all the rules. I'll try to respond to the various points raised and try to clear up any misunderstandings.

"conflict of interest/neutrality" : the subject of the article José Tolentino de Mendonça (JTM) is an individual. I don't work for him and I have no power of representation on his behalf. I always try to find quality references to back up what I write, if possible in the Anglo-Saxon press, if not in Portuguese press. As JTM is Portuguese and very well known in his home country, his actions are followed very closely there. Sometimes I mention 'Vatican' sources, such as Vatican News or the Holy See's official communications service, which cannot be accused of a lack of objectivity when all they do is mention a new appointment.

António0196 is a direct reference to my first name. I am the one and only user of this account.

I receive no compensation and do not expect to receive any for what I write on Wikipedia.

Please confirm that these few lines clarify and answer the objections mentioned in your message.

This will allow me to continue contributing to Wikipedia to the best of my ability.

Bestest.

António0196

ANTÓNIO0196 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ANTÓNIO0196 -- I understand all that. Please try to avoid editing in ways that may appear promotional. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome message on my Talk page. Alanli1996 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g, thanks for your message received here from talk about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda. Yes I am concerned about the misinformation allowed by Wiki promoting misinformation about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda which is only based on personal and very few facts presented, emphasizing old news which only just happened because of ignorance of the people with regards to law. the writer tried to present his opinion in a very malicious way. We are the legitimate new government for the Philippines and soon to be fully operation with lots of transmittals we receive from the government, we are sure our future is bright because we are the only government with lawful territorial integrity. Ninnerity (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ninnerity - to be honest, your response here is extremely concerning and seems to completely misunderstand Wikipedia's policies and the message I sent you. Please read the links in that message, and especially Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah I read about Conflict of Interest and Neutrality. Even if this New Nation I mean is actually under the international law and under Royal Decree Protocol 01-4 and the World Peace Treaty and operating under the existing laws of ownership in the Philippine Constitution, with tangible and absolute proof of Sovereignty and Jurisdiction. it is unfair that my edit is not qualified while the existing version is not substantial. Might as well do not write any bias info at wiki if the intention of the existing wiki about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda is not factual. because my edit version is based purely on facts as prescribed by law. so how come the one who tried to revert to the misinformation is the one who stayed at wiki? Is he not in Conflict of Interest to the Rule of Law? Where is Neutrality? Ninnerity (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, mostly because I have no context for the topic in question. My only suggestion would be to discuss on the article's talk page, where you should be able to find people who know more about what's going on. However, I would strongly recommend against editing the article itself as your conflict of interest is becoming quite clear. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jayg good day. I reviewed this Wikipedia entry and it seemd fine. the only thing is the currency saying Euro is our currency, actually it is not Euro but this is the symbol of our medium of exchange is AΩ, (Alpha Omega Gold Dollar) because this is property of God. our website for the banking is rscb.site. and the website for our Constitutional Dejure court is highesttribunal.site .

thanks Ninnerity (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind help with the citations of Draft:List of BL dramas article. Best wishes! — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 04:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g. Why did you write on my user page that this entry has "very few" "independent" references?

All 30+ citations, including prior to your comment, are made to websites or books published by independent, third-party institutions and publications, including national authorities The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Academy of American Poets, and The Poetry Foundation.

For the entry's accuracy of citations and subject notability, one may begin by seeing:

https://poets.org/poet/chris-hosea

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/chris-hosea

https://lsupress.org/author/chris-hosea/

https://www.chicagoreview.org/chris-hosea/

https://apnews.com/9e163604c113410dab2450c2783666d7

And, for context:

Walt Whitman Award John Ashbery

FYI Masterzora Masterzora recently made helpful citation style edits.

Rocinante108 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rocinante108, as I mentioned previously, this is not an area that I know much about so I'm not able to be very helpful here. I'd suggest asking elsewhere -- I saw you already started a discussion on the article's talk page, which is always a good place to start. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @V Jay8g

You suggest you are not an expert in the field of American poetry, something that seems apparent, based on your erroneous claims about the Chris Hosea entry.

For some reason, you have written and published what amount to False statements of fact, without qualification, in your own words.

For example, you made the blanket assertion that "very few" of the entry's references were "independent," and suggested in writing that you based this falsehood on your own personal review of the entry.

In fact, the entry's truthful claims were and have been supported (before, during, and after your untrue assertions) by dozens of easily verified, independent, third-party references.

You have registered, moreover, false statements of fact about a Public_figure distinctively notable in their field.

Why, during the past 10 years, did no other editor, apparently, raise any doubts about the entry's references?

For over a decade, a quick review of the entry's revision history shows, Wikipedia editors have acknowledged the notability of Chris Hosea, based, initally, on his appearance, in 2013, on the List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award, a first book prize administered by The Academy of American Poets, and judged by eminent field authority John Ashbery, whose Wikipedia entry currently begins: "Ashbery is considered the most influential American poet of his time."

Prior Wikipedia editors have correctly assigned Chris Hosea to the following categories:

Category:Harvard University alumni Category:University of Massachusetts Amherst MFA Program for Poets & Writers alumni Category:1973 births Category:Living people Category:American male poets Category:American male artists Category:21st-century American poets Category:21st-century American male writers

You, personally, potentially may have the responsibility of defending your Burden of proof (law) in a Defamation lawsuit.

I believe any fair-minded individual would recognize that, at the least, you did not abide by the Wikipedia community's guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Will you apologize for and retract your false statements of fact?

Thank you in advance for your reply. Rocinante108 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an ANI discussion about this. Please continue the discussion there if that's what you want to do. Otherwise, as I've said before, I'm staying out of this. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to several studies, the Hui people have significant connections to the Middle East and Central Asia, which are markedly different from the Han Chinese. Here are the details:

1. Whole-Genome Sequencing Study: A whole-genome sequencing study on the Hui people indicates that they have significant Western ancestry. The research shows that approximately 10% of the Hui genome comes from Western Eurasian populations, a proportion significantly higher than that found in the Han Chinese. The study points out that the ancestors of the Hui included merchants and political emissaries from Arabia, Persia, and Central Asia, who migrated to China during the Tang Dynasty and intermarried with the local population​ (Oxford Academic)​.
2. Y-Chromosome Analysis: Another study focusing on Y-chromosome analysis of the Hui population in Liaoning Province reveals that nearly 30% of Hui male lineages are of Western origin. This research identifies a high frequency of North Asian and Central Asian Y-chromosome haplogroups among the Hui, which are not commonly found in the Han Chinese, supporting the significant genetic contribution from Western Eurasian populations​ (BioMed Central)​​ (Frontiers)​.

Additionally, those so-called genes similar to the Han Chinese are due to the deliberate obfuscation by some Chinese researchers aiming to assimilate the Hui people.

These studies provide strong evidence that the Hui people have a distinct genetic heritage that includes substantial Western Eurasian ancestry, distinguishing them from the Han Chinese. I hope this information will help reinstate my edits on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your attention. A2355645 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A2355645, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Simply removing large amounts of content without a talk page discussion or even an edit summary is problematic, as is edit warring without discussion. This is a topic I have no background or context on so I will not be editing the page on your behalf, but your post above would make a good start to a discussion on the article's talk page, where you will be much more likely to find people who actually know about the topic. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I joined Wikipedia a few months ago and I was warned because of edit war Colombia page and I don’t really know about many of the policies here because I just recently started editing again.I want to know many of the more important policies on Wikipedia so next time I am more informed on this. ElMexicanotres (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see that you've been removing the ABC News wikilinks, since they currently go to a disambiguation page following a recent page move. I believe most of them should be adjusted to ABC News (United States).

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

Just thought I'd drop you a quick note thanking you for the message! I already have a topic of discussion I think, in WP:LEAD, that might benefit from the experience of those in the Teahouse. I'll probably drop by at some point soon and raise :).

Thanks! - CarterPD (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello boy, but it's not correct the redirect "Unreviewed" because Poggio Sommavilla is a fraction of the municipality of Collevecchio in the Tiber valley and not an archaeological area!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patatebollenti (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe try WP:Teahouse if you have further questions. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

It looks like you suggested this edit, but I can't see where it says that the original article or either of the comments the quote was taken from were made on January 6, 2012. I can see other comments by Deitch made on that date, but not those used here.

Can you tell me where that date came from? Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ubcule, Citation Bot normally pulls date information from the page's metadata, which includes meta property="article:published_time" content="2012-01-06T10:13:38+00:00"/. It's a bit unusual to cite comments on a blog post rather than the post itself, so I'm not surprised Citation Bot got confused here. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay8g: The article date seems fine, then. I agree that it's somewhat unusual to cite comments, but in this case they were by Deitch (i.e. both the co-creator of the film and author of the article) on his own site, so it can be assumed they're relevant regardless.

The comment quotes are from two different comments made at slightly different times (and they do include dates), so short of splitting them into two references (which I'd rather not), I'm not sure how they'd both be dated correctly in a single field.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g. You messaged me on 19 August after I made my first Wikipedia edit, which was to update the profile for David Cappo AO. You suggested it was worth getting you or another editor to check proposed changes. I then noticed that my work had been flagged as containing "promotional material", which was a little surprising. I have drafted some revisions which I think remedy any perceived problems, but I can't work out how to get someone to check them and then how to get the flag removed. I thought I had replied to your earlier message and I also sent an email to another address but have had no response. I hope you can help. Thanks Nick2103 Nick2103 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick2103, I'd suggest you ask at the WP:Teahouse if you would like to discuss further. The content you added was full of promotional wording and resume-like content and is primarily referenced to the organizations' own websites rather than independent sources, which is problematic. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I appreciate your welcome message :) The-lambda-way (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shoot, I meant to swap this out and have it run whichever day it launches... I gather it's tomorrow now. But I've been busy so never got around to it and it ran yesterday. Oh well. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g and thanks for the welcome. I've been writing on WP for almost 9 years and have never had a conflict of interest. I love and hate WP and try to improve it where I see deficiencies and I try to do it almost as a fanatic of the neutral point of view. For years I have only edited WP in my spare time, already having a government job that takes up a lot of my time. However if there is something I can do to improve my contributions, I am always ready to listen. Thanks again and good work. Bronzino (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:NMartinez1 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You might want to actually look at the existing sources before reverting a user and warning them for making unsourced changes. The article Damian Priest has sources listing his name as "Luis Martínez". Without reliable sources giving his name as "Luis Berrios Martinez Jr." NMartinez1 was perfectly correct to change the name to "Luis Martínez". Meters (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding User_talk:Sokarre, it would be helpful not to give different sections the same heading. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g

I'm reaching out about the message on editing the page for Akalanka Peries. As per your message, I've done few things.

1. I created a draft of the article in my user talk -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samanxy/sandbox/akldraft Let me know if you have any thoughts about it.

2. I created a new account since the previous account did imply that I might be affiliated with the Akalanka, and did not individually identify me (Saman).

Let me know, thank you Samanxy (talk) Samanxy (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samanxy -- I see you've submitted it as a draft through articles for creation, which doesn't really work since there's already an article. You should post on the article's talk page and follow the process outlined here, and someone will come along and review your suggestions. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g and thank you for the warm welcome!

I have a question: I worked with Jon 10 years ago and I'm not related to him in any matter. Since I have the same last name should I declare that in a COI message on the talk page of Jon to further help develop that page? I've used double citations to every sentence to validate the information I've put in. I would love to add more information about his bag company Db and furthermore edit the company page as well as it lacks a lot of information. Best, Olsson92 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the paragraph I added without discussion claiming NPOV. I suggest that you try to substantiate your claim. Please keep in mind that the FDA is in fact financed by Big Pharma to a considerable percentage, and certain committees recommending to FDA are exclusively Big Pharma organizations. My claim that Big Pharma has huge clout is not a biased POV, in fact, anyone who disagrees with that POV is very likely to have financial reasons, including conflicts of interest to hold an opposite opinion. I would suggest that you make concrete discussion points concerning statements that bother you, with some rational arguments, not just jump at what you do not like and try censorship rather than discussion as a default. CarlWesolowski (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I softened the first two sentences a bit, so that they appear to be less NPOV. However, in my own practice, I have seen bad actor behavior with pharmaceuticals made by small companies being taken off the market for no good reason and to bad effect on the practice of medicine. Try yourself to be more neutral in your assessment. For example, the NYT articles are factual, the references to journal articles were peer reviewed, and you should really present arguments other than a first impression to delete a contribution.CarlWesolowski (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CarlWesolowski: The language you have used, similar to most of the existing content in the article, serves to promote the subject in a non-neutral way. WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, and the WP:ONUS is on those who add information to an article to show that it is appropriate to include. Do you have a conflict of interest/personal connection to the article subject? Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CarlWesolowski -- I have edited the article to remove non-neutral and promotional content. If you would like to discuss further, please start a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, but please do not re-add the content without further discussion. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My ability to start a discussion on Wikipedia: Neutral Point of view/Noticeboard is limited by my relative unfamiliarity with how to do that. If you want to discuss something there, I would seriously suggest that you start such a conversation at that location. Wikipedia does not have, IMHO, a NPOV. For example, the article on The Great Barrington Declaration is very partisan, very badly written and full of garbage. I could go on, but Wikipedia should also be very careful about partisan opinions, accusations of racism, conflicts of interest without proof and the like. Are such things "the pot calling the kettle black?" Sure, the language could be improved, if so, do so, but please be civil about it. CarlWesolowski (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Niazi came to my attention via as the first person who correctly developed the mathematical basis for how volume of distribution of a drug changes in time using sums of exponential distribution in 1976 which work was called to my attention by the then Editor-in-Chief of J Pharmacodyn and Pharmacokin. You do not seem to be content expert. That work was pivotal and was not even mentioned in the article. I am reverting the changes. Discuss first, delete only when your POV, which BTW is not NPOV to my eyes, is found acceptable. CarlWesolowski (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Do you have a conflict of interest/personal connection to the article subject?

A. No CarlWesolowski (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am in no way connected to Grimanesa Amorós. However, I did realize that her Wikipedia article seemed more chaotic than the other artists in the same space, so I wanted to improve her page. I am trying my best to remove the flags of Conflict of Interest and Promotion, and I have successfully already removed the Conflict of Interest flag. However, you reinstated the Promotion flag, and I would like to know why. Was it the references that I used, as I did cite her personal website a couple of times, or was it perhaps the language? Please provide specific examples, as I am not too knowledgeable, but would like to make Wikipedia a better place for information. Thanks. Twillykek (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Twillykek - I'm not sure how much of it is your edits and how much was already there, but the article is severely promotional rather than being written like a neutral encyclopedia article. It really reads like the sort of blurb the subject would put on their own website or send out to try to get hired. For example, the lead is just a resume-like laundry list of qualifications and name-dropping of things that are meant to sound impressive. The sourcing is pretty poor too, with very few independent, third-party sources provided.

My best advice for you would be to go through other articles, ideally good articles which have been reviewed by others, and consider stepping back and working on other things for a while rather than staying focused on one article. Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jay8g! thanks for your edits on this article! I'm working on improving so it doesn't look like a resume.If you have the time, could you please give it a look again and let me know which parts are concerning? Thanks a lot in advance. Yhhue91 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly explain why you removed links to free content at scientific and academic sites like the National Academies of Sciences and Stanford University Research Labs or the AI Index and marked them as "promotional"? These are reliable, neutral sources and appears there are not currently any Wikipedia articles on these topics so isn't a link the correct way for readers to get more information? Or perhaps the links should be citations instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.159.125 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL. External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. Perhaps some of them could be turned into references, but most of the ones in that article duplicate existing citations. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I'll remove them and turn some into references. 70.167.159.125 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed several links to citations and/or removed them as you suggested. I also removed adjective "best-selling" before "author". I didn't see any other content that could be interpreted as promotional. Thanks for pointing out these issues.

Can you remove the tag? 70.167.159.125 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The entire article is written in a non-neutral, promotional tone that makes it sound like a puff piece written on behalf of the article's subject. Please see the notice I put on your user talk page. Do you have a connection to the article subject? Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for the welcome message! :) Klungo Jones (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay8g: Thanks for the welcome & helpful comments. You wrote: "To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it." Would you be willing to read a draft of the revised article? If yes, would you let me know how to get the draft to you? I wanted to update the original article but didn't realize I can't do that as the person the article is about. I'm so sorry - any help would be much appreciated. Thank you. Monaco888 (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay8g. I mistakenly edited a page about me. I now realize that Wikipedia pages cannot be edited by the person they are about. Now there is a large box warning that it is autobiographical. I do not want to have a COI and I do not want the page to say that it is autobiographical, and I am trying to figure out how to fix this. I requested that the page be reverted to before I made edits, but my request was declined (I cannot tell why). I am so sorry to have made this mistake. I am an older person and not used to editing web pages, and I wish I hadn't. Is there a way to return the page to where it was before I did any editing? Or, if not, is there anything that can be done so that the autobiographical tag is removed? I would greatly appreciate any guidance. I cannot figure out how to solve this problem. Thank you in advance for any help! Monaco888 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monaco888 -- at this point, I think you should talk to @Bbb23 as that's who has reverted your edits. Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new users. Hello, is it possible to welcome new users to Wikipedia? Since I am a new editor to Wikipedia, is this not against the rules?Thanks. Happy editing! (BeatifulWorldcarefules (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay8g,

You reached out to me on my page offering valuable guidance, and to proofread draft before submission. Can I request you to proofread this page and give me your feedback please? Draft:Yoga of Immortals

Thank you very much. Samaniaa (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samaniaa - please use the normal draft submission process. Thanks! Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok. I thought you said, its best practice to proofread the draft before submission? Did I misunderstand your last message? Samaniaa (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's for articles that are already live, not ones that are still drafts. Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you. Samaniaa (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jay8g, Thank you again for your earlier guidance on my user talk page. I have disclosed my conflict of interest as recommended and also emailed you using the “Email this user” function to ask whether it would be appropriate to move the article to the draft space for further revision. Since I haven’t received a response yet, I wanted to kindly follow up here. Specifically, I’m hoping to move the article from mainspace to draft space by selecting “Draft” in the new title dropdown and “Move to draft space” in the reason field. Would that be okay? I’d really appreciate your input before I proceed. Thanks again for your help!08:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassnain Raza786 -- I'm not sure how you tried to email me since I have never had the email user function enabled. Anyway, yes, moving the article to draft space and following the normal draft submission process is a good idea. Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jay8g — I appreciate the clarification and your guidance. I’ll go ahead and move the article to draft space as advised.

Best regards, Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay8g,

Thank you again for your guidance. I’ve now moved the article to draft space and made a genuine effort to reduce promotional content as much as possible, while improving neutrality and sourcing.

I may consider adding further details such as a picture of the subject, an infobox, or additional content later on — but before doing that, I’d appreciate your approval on the current version.

If you find the draft appropriate for mainspace, I’d be grateful for your feedback here: Draft:Imtiaz Rafi Butt

Also, if the draft is considered suitable, I’d appreciate your guidance on how to properly attach a picture of the subject, in accordance with Wikipedia’s image and licensing policies.

Thanks again for your time and support!

— Hassnain Raza786 (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best way forward is to submit the draft through the standard draft process for others to review. I have done so for you now. As for a photo, the best option is to take one yourself. In most cases, using photos that others have taken is a copyright violation without specific permission. Jay8g

[V•T•E] 17:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g,

Thank you for taking a look at my edits on this article. Although I was curious to what exactly you thought was "excessive" and "promotional" about the changes. You did not really explain what you thought the problems were with the changes so it would be very helpful if you could explain what you feel could be improved. I plan on reducing the information I added in my edits already, but if you have any more feedback you can provide it would be greatly appreciated. — MasonKabat32 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g,

This is Brian, one of the other editors of this article, and I was also wondering what you found to be promotional. I am a computer science student learning bioinformatics and I came across this article and thought it needed an update. The article is quite scarce and does not give a clear picture of what the event is about. The information on the past conferences is not easily accessible so I thought it would be a great way to understand what happens at the conference each year. So if someone were interested and wanted to go, they would have an idea of what goes on there. Let me know what your thoughts are, I would like to keep our information in the article. — bhartman4 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the information you added was highly excessive for a Wikipedia article. If you want to have a quick summary of the conferences, that might be OK, but not to the extent you added. I'd suggest you check other articles on similar subjects (ideally ones that are listed as good or featured articles. If you want to discuss further, please check out the WP:TEAHOUSE. Also, @MasonKabat32, please stick to one account. Thanks. Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in this edit you had CitationBot reintroduce an ISBN which I had just removed because it's invalid. The ISBN in question is for the 2023 reprint, which is not what is linked to or cited. Pre-1965 works do not, in general, have ISBNs. See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 98#ISBN / Date incompatibility for further discussion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jay8g,

Thank you for your welcome message. I have read your instructions and I hope I am following the rules correctly. I also appreciate your willingness to proofread the draft when it's ready. Do you have any general advice for me? Thanks again! Celeste1971 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Celeste1971 -- please use the standard WP:AFC submission process. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok perfect, thank you! Celeste1971 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for patrolling new articles but I'm curious why you tagged J. Otto Pohl for notability? I've never seen an article deleted when there are five independent book reviews covering their work, and I have reason to believe there's more coverage of Pohl's work that might be more difficult to find. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, normally I just ignore articles on academics because NAUTHOR/NPROF allow through so many people who aren't even close to being notable by any typical metric. Clearly I should go back to doing that. Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree when it comes to NPROF but with five independent sources it is definitely possible to write a fleshed out wiki article. (t · c) buidhe 06:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g - I did what you suggested and completed the disclosure form and as an added disclosure, upon my edit to the page, I added that I myself made them with my title in the text. All the information was true and I provided citations for everything. I do not understand why it was removed once again after a very time-consuming task to add them back in. Rhonda Seaton Seatonr (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jay8g, Thank you for reviewing Daniel Palmer (art historian). You've added a 'promo' template and commented "Full of promotional fluff". I disagree, and I think my efforts to avoid such a transgression are clear. 'Professor' is the highest level an academic researcher can obtain in Australia so I don't think Palmer is in need of any promotion, and only a couple of points in this article come from his university page...just positions held and other facts. If the inferences might be that I have accepted payment for this article or favours of some kind, or that the subject is a close associate of mine, then let me assure none is the case. My interest is, as you will see from my other articles, in the history of Australian photography to which Palmer's writings have contributed significantly, so in my estimation, they warrant credit. As for other articles I have attempted to be as comprehensive as possible and here I have tried to structure the article to elucidate clearly those insights Palmer has added progressively through his career rather than just a lock-step chronological account. I welcome any constructive advice you may have on this entry...maybe point out specifically where the "promotional fluff" appears...is it the language? Would it help to shift all articles by Palmer to the Publications section instead of as inline references...but will other editors then place 'no citation' tags against mention of the artists he has reviewed—catch 22? Thank you for your patient advice, Jamesmcardle (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what was said on the article's talk page: The whole tone of the article is promotional and reads like a puff piece written on behalf of the article's subject (I see that you have denied a COI, but I'm just saying what the article reads like) rather than a neutral encyclopedic article. There used to be a {{promotional tone}} template, which would have been more accurate in this case if it still existed. Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g. I'm a new Wikipedia user, and I'm sorry for what I just did. I didn't try to vandalise the page, this is my assignment. We need additional writing on the Wikipedia stub to make it better.Hope i won't blocked by Wikipedia.Looking forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyra Huang (talk • contribs) 10:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... is now live :) YFB ¿ 15:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed the album list on this page in an attempt to help remove the promo tag. Kindly review when you have a minute. Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamalswiki: The lists aren't the problem, the text is the problem. It's full of WP:PUFFERY and promotional language. All of your edits have been to this one page and all of them have been full of promotional language, so I'm asking again: what is your connection to the subject? Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of the promotional language ? Are you concerned about just the latest edit or all edits since the last revert ? I am a student of music and a fan of the artist and would like to make her page updated with the latest factual information. She is nationally recognized for her accomplishments and does not really need my puffery. Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links I have sent you, including WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV. It's hard to give examples when it's the entire article. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the current version or the older version dated 19:58, 17 May 2025 ? I have taken a lot of effort since then to change the tone of the article and to write it from the point of view of the citations referenced. I request you to kindly review it Shyamalswiki (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I asked for review feedback from the teahouse and based on some pointers, I have made some more edits to remove some content that might appear promotional. I just wanted to let you know in case you wished to review. I will give it a couple days and then remove the promotional tag. I hope that is the right process. Shyamalswiki (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Clarification on the Encyclopedic Tone and Sources for Disciples of Ramakrishna Article

Dear Jay8g,

Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review the article Disciples of Ramakrishna. I would like to respectfully clarify a few points regarding your concern about the article's tone and the maintenance tag related to encyclopedic style.

I have made every effort to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia’s expectations for a neutral, encyclopedic tone, avoiding promotional or subjective language throughout. The text is written in a factual, concise, and informative manner, modeled on the structure and style used in established biographical and religious articles on Wikipedia — including those related to Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, and other figures of the Ramakrishna Order.

Additionally, I have compiled and reviewed over 300 reliable references — including books published by the Ramakrishna Math and Mission, academic works on modern Hinduism and Vedanta, and publications by reputable scholars and institutions. While many of these references are still being systematically added to the article, I am fully committed to expanding and refining the citations to improve verifiability and ensure that each section meets Wikipedia’s sourcing standards.

Regarding the maintenance template: I acknowledge your point about not removing tags without resolving the underlying issue or offering an edit summary. My intent was not to disregard the concerns but to reflect the fact that substantial improvements had been made in good faith. Going forward, I will be more careful in discussing such changes via the Talk page or in the edit summary before taking action.

I appreciate your guidance and welcome any specific suggestions on where you feel the tone still needs adjustment. Collaboration is the key to building a better article, and I remain committed to improving Disciples of Ramakrishna in line with Wikipedia's best practices.

Warm regards,

Eshaan the writer. Eshaan the writer (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly create a new topic. This thread is specifically for my discussion regarding Jayanthi Kumaresh article Shyamalswiki (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eshaan the writer: Please do not use AI/chatbots to write messages. I sure hope you haven't been using AI to write the article. Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g, I assure you that my contributions to the article were written in my own words based on thorough research, not generated by AI or chatbots. If you have specific concerns, I’m happy to address them on your talk page. Eshaan the writer (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have reverted my book summaries in the article on Kishore Mahbubani because of the promoting character of the presentation. Can you tell me what would have to be changed so that you would accept the summaries as factual and neutral without an? Do you have an example for such a boook summary, or is there a set of rules for this that I don't know? Best regards,

Gabel1960 (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabel1960: Those sort of lengthy book summaries just aren't something that you typically find in Wikipedia articles, and the ones you added read more like promotional blurbs written by someone trying to sell those books. I would suggest just sticking to a plain list of books, like what author articles normally have. Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good day! To write an article for Wikipedia, what percentage of reliable sources should be used in the article? Thank you. (I love yourwiki (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

All of them. All of the sources you use should be reliable. Unreliable sources should not be included. Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (I love yourwiki (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

What else do you want? TheWikiholic has already deleted the paragraph in question. K7yz3 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is rather thinly sourced without much to show notability. Also, you really need to tone down your anger/aggression with other editors. Please follow WP:AGF. Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about a documentary film. What other sources do you need? Also, the paragraph in question has already been deleted. K7yz3 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor also using ChatGPT to find sources. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think I left them a warning for that too... Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay8g Your message on my talk page accusing me of using AI violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Making unsupported claims about fellow editors based on writing style constitutes personal attacks under Wikipedia policy.

Your timing is particularly concerning - these accusations emerged only after I successfully defended an article against deletion using policy-based arguments. This pattern suggests WP:WIKIHOUNDING rather than good-faith content concerns.

Wikipedia encourages clear, well-structured writing that accurately cites policies. Your implication that coherent prose somehow indicates AI use is both unfounded and contrary to what we should promote on Wikipedia. If you believe specific content violates WP:V or WP:NPOV, identify those issues rather than making speculative attacks on editors.

WP:HARASS prohibits the kind of behavioral accusations you've made without evidence. I write my own contributions and expect fellow editors to assume good faith unless clear proof exists otherwise. Focus on content improvement, not character assassination of editors who disagree with your positions.

If you have legitimate policy concerns about specific edits, present them with evidence. Otherwise, please cease making unsubstantiated claims about my editing methods. EditorSage42 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EditorSage42 bludgeoning and likely LLM use. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay8g,

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I am a new editor and still learning, so I appreciate your guidance.

I understand your concern about AI-generated text. To clarify, while I did use an AI assistant (Gemini) to help me with translation and grammar from my native language (Korean), I personally researched and verified all the facts and sources for the edit myself. My sources included the Los Angeles Times, Nikkei Asia, and Carscoops.

My goal was to add a "Critical reception" section to the BYD article to provide balance to the "Recognition" section, which currently only lists awards.

Could you please advise me on the best way to re-introduce this sourced information? I am happy to do it more gradually or discuss it further.

Thank you for your time. SkyWatcher789 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice is to not use AI, which likes to produce promotional-sounding puffery instead of neutral text. And definitely don't use AI for discussions with other users -- that's considered quite impolite. Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g, Thanks for reviewing my edit and pointing out the issues with citation. I revised my earlier edit on Züleyxa Izmailova to ensure it complies with BLP policy. The updated version uses a reliable English-language ERR News source and avoids any editorializing. The phrase “tibla mentality” is included only with proper attribution, per the ERR article. Let me know if any further improvements are needed. Thanks for the previous note - appreciate your time and vigilance. And yes, I used AI in deed, but just to correct my language mistakes and to make sure I an not biased and adhere to Wikipedia policies. MrSpottyshine (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSpottyshine: AI is not a way to "make sure I an not biased and adhere to Wikipedia policies"; in fact, it does the exact opposite. Don't use AI. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I do appreciate your vigilance, and that you are trying to be helpful, but I do not have any WP:COI with any page I have edited on Wikipedia. I am an academic. I have no connection whatsoever with Kent C. Berridge other than an academic knowledge of his work, an interest in the subject matter, and a desire to turn a poor, incomplete, and outdated article into a better one, which I hope I have done. With respect, this is quite an unfriendly way to greet potentially new people (although I have worked on Wikipedia in years gone by). Thank you.N3uro5sci (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Jay8g,

I just created my new Wikipedia article. This is my second article dedicated to an artist, this time David Chichkan. I would appreciate it if you could check it out. Thank you for your time and your advice. It's really important to me! ~~~~ Anonymous-anonym (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous-anonym: If you want someone to review your article, use the WP:AFC process. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Anonymous-anonym (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g I have received a message from you about the article Bahram Mashhoon. In the message you mention that the article may be deleted because it seems that I have written the article about myself. I have not written any Wikipedia article about myself. I am Mahmood Roshan, a professor of physics at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. You can find my information at the following links:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=oAd3rQ8AAAAJ&hl=en

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9748-2928

However, I have written a Wikipedia article for Professor Bahram Mashhoon, a well-known physicist. I am happy to continue the discussion until you are satisfied with this matter. Please let me know how can I contribute to prevent the deletion. Thank you very much for your time.

Mahmoodroshan (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g, per your note I’ve prepared an edit request for the Songyee Yoon article. The proposal is here: Talk:Songyee Yoon#Proposed update: HP board & Principal Venture Partners. If you have time, could you please take a look? Thanks! Zijimi (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Jay8g, I hope this message finds in good health and best of spirits. My name is Muneeb-Ul-Hassan, I am Director I.T System Wing at the Ministry of Law and Justice, Pakistan. It came to our notice that Pakistan's Former Law Minister, H.E. Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi's Wikipedia page was altered in the early month of May. His contribution as ex-Federal Minister, and as the President of Pakistan's only non-partisan legal think-tank, Research Society of International Law (RSIL), and advisor to key Pakistani institutions which shape Pakistan's international legal policy, were not cited or quoted on his page. Instead, the page contained most material and information on a former case, the Boradsheet Case, instead of his personal and legal career. We request you to allow the edits made in good faith. We also request Wikipedia seniors to independently verify any material before or after the edits.

We trust that Wikipedia shall continue to maintain the non-partisan standards while providing accurate information and details to its audience.

We shall be more than glad to share top-tier citations from valid sources.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully, Muneeb-ul-Hassan 121.91.34.8 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Jay8g, This is to bring in your notice that Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, and Former Federal Minister, his page was reverted to an old edit made during early May. The page doesn't cite his establishment of Pakistan's only international law think-tank, and his major contributions to Pakistan before in international law cases before the ICJ, and other forums.

There is some other information which is incorrect, including the broadsheet case.

This message is sent by clerk IT department, Ministry or Law & Justice Pakistan.

We await your reply. 2400:ADCC:914:7600:51C2:E333:A45A:5993 (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I already warned your last IP, that is paid editing, which is largely not acceptable. You need to stop whitewashing and promotionalizing the article, and it has been protected as a result. Jay8g [V•T•E] 16:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from accusing me of "paid editing". One, it is not a paid editing. Second, The article itself covers less about Mr. Soofi and more about the Broadsheet Case, which has an independent page as well. You may edit the page but do at least some justice to the article of Pakistan's only International Lawyer and Federal Minister.

Also, some of his family details are also incorrect.

One can independently verify all the edits which were made. Only leading news-media sources were cited in the article. Law & Justice Dept (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g,

I saw you reverted my edits on the Automatic vehicle location, Telematic control unit, GPS tracking unit, and Track and trace articles due to concerns about AI-generated text. I wanted to clarify how I worked on them.

I can assure you that all the research, sourcing, and writing was my own. I only used an AI tool to help with grammar and formatting, not to generate the content itself. As I understand it, Wikipedia's policy on large language models doesn't ban the use of such tools for assistance, as long as the editor takes full responsibility for the content, which I absolutely do.

My main goal was to update these articles, as they were in rough shape and hadn't been seriously edited in years—the "Track and trace" page, for example, had a cleanup tag from 2011! I spent a lot of time finding new, reliable sources and reorganizing the content to be more logical and appropriate as of 2025.

I believe we both share the common goal of making Wikipedia's content as reliable and high-quality as possible. With all due respect, I feel that reverting the articles back to their decade-old, poorly sourced versions doesn't help achieve that goal. My edits added numerous citations from reliable sources and a much-needed modern structure.

I'd be happy to discuss any specific parts you're concerned about. My only goal is to improve these articles, and I'm open to working with you to get them right.

Thanks, UrusHyby (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use AI chatbots to reply to people on Wikipedia. That's considered highly impolite. See WP:AITALK. Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. WP:AITALK says nothing about impoliteness, though. And You still haven't replied to the core message that I've posted. I would really appreciate that. UrusHyby (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket “AI” templating without a quoted error isn’t a content review. The BCJR change cites the existing sources with page numbers and matches the math. Name the line + policy if there’s an issue; otherwise please avoid templating good-faith content edits and use the article Talk for specifics. — Philo39 (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And AI-generated content is the opposite of "learning". Just don't do it. Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don’t have me confused with someone else? The only change I made on that page was adding a recent concert photo. Thanks for any clarifications. Dharmabumstead (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently posted to Icollectdeadtrees's talk page to say that the edits this user made on Jessica Bird were AI generated. This editor is a student in this Wiki-Education-supported course, and I'm the instructor. The student completed the edits as part of a major editing project, and the edits were made under my supervision, so I'm certain that none of these edits were, like you suggested, AI-generated. Could you please point out exactly what you think is AI content in Icollectdeadtrees's edits? Thanks! Dr.ozkul (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.ozkul: The edits (and especially the edit summaries) have a distinct AI tone to them, but the big sign is the fake "citation needed" template added in this edit, something that's often added by AI edits (and why is someone adding content with a citation needed tag anyway?). Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I really don't see the distinct AI tone you're mentioning in any of these edit summaries, not to mention the fact that these were written under my supervision. One edit summary, for example, reads, "I made some edits to improve clarity, organization, and flow. In particular, I reorganized the Biography into 3 distinct sections: Early Life and Education, Personal Life, and Career. I did this to make the information easier to navigate. Also, where needed, I rephrased content to better comply with NOR, NPOV, and V guidelines, and removed or refined any unsourced or interpretive phrasing." I genuinely don't see which part here (or other edit summaries) signals that this is AI to you, so I'm respectfully pushing back on this argument.

With regard to "the edits," your response is still not specific enough for me, so I went ahead and checked some of the edits my student made. In this project, we try not to add any content (sometimes, students add a couple sentences here and there for better flow, transition, or just other purposes), but we try to reorganize, reframe, or restructure the content that has been added by other editors. So, there's not a ton of new content here added by the student, but I did look at some of the sentences added. For example, you could argue that a sentence like, "The same article notes that her works have been bestsellers in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and several South American countries," added by the student to the lead section, sounds very AI-like. I acknowledge AI tends to use such tone all the time, but would also like to point out that most technical, professional, or research writing uses the same tone and style (so, things like passive voice, it-clefts, lack of pronouns; in general, a style that excludes the personal voice of the writer from the writing), which is also perceived as AI by many readers, or even tagged as AI-generated by AI detection tools. But yeah, the student wrote these things without AI.

Regarding the citation needed tag you mentioned: You do make a great point and thanks for removing the citation needed tag, but let me give you some context on that: The student's argument is that no reliable information about the book (such as the publication date, publisher, etc.) could be found online, so as the student was working on turning that part of the article into a table (which is not necessarily adding content, but rather transforming the content that already exists, which is the main focus of our project in this course), there was a bit of hesitation about deleting that part entirely because it wasn't cited by whoever initially added that information. So, I definitely hear you; it's not necessary to add a citation needed tag there, but please keep in mind that this is a teaching situation, so the student was just trying their best to comply with the Wikipedia community policies and guidelines by adding that.

Student edits are often not perfect in this project because the idea of doing community-based editing is a brand-new concept to most of them, but they genuinely try. I very much appreciate your opinion, and had we not been done with this particular project, I would have encouraged my student to talk to you here on this page personally, but they are already working on their next project, which is why I stepped in to chat with you. Thank you very much for your time. Dr.ozkul (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did they end up creating a fake citation needed template the way AI chatbots like to do?

Long, "conversational" edit summaries like that are a very common AI sign, see WP:AITELLS#Overwhelmingly_verbose_edit_summaries. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the WP:AITELLS page, and I'm sure my students are too because they were assigned to complete a training created by Wiki Education on using AI on Wikipedia [2]. The idea of AI text being bad for Wikipedia and that it shouldn't be used is something we spend time on in this class.

You shouldn't automatically assume an edit summary is AI-gen just because it is conversational. That's why it's a clue and not definitive, concrete evidence of someone using AI. I, as many other people involved in research writing, use em-dashes a lot, so by your logic am I also using AI all the time because AI is obsessed with it?

Some students tend to write summaries that sound conversational, whereas some of them write using a tone that you might be more familiar with. Here are a couple examples written by my students from previous semester:

• Edit summary created by user Khara Byars, who was a very successful student in this course, on Digital rhetoric : "I have removed the information about Trump from this section. I did this because I believe it violates NPOV due to the content and context of the article. If this were a fully political section then it would make sense but this is a general article about digital rhetoric that applies worldwide and including negative information about a US President does not seem relevant to this particular section. A more generalized example can be included if desired"
• Another one from Lillith (Supernatural) : "I have made a brief summary of the history and origin of the mythological Lilith that sheds some insight where her character originated from. This summary comes from sources from the Lilith article and refers the reader to that article for more information. I also moved the picture from the Development section to the Origin section."
• Here's another one that is not as long but is conversational, written by Carolinedollar3 on Political extremism in Japan: "I added a new section, "The Lasting Effects of Political Extremism in Japan." This section goes over the most recent updates and includes citations"
• On the other hand, you also have students like Dede2520, who keep it short and non-conversational "Made substantial changes to organization of information within the article. Deleted extraneous information, and grouped information based on its contribution to the article's main point. Copyediting and other minor edits as well. Copied from User:Dede2520/sandbox." This is taken from Russophilia.

Some students write long paragraphs and/or conversationally simply because I tell them that they should sound like themselves on Wikipedia. They are not writing a research paper or a memo, so the tone tends to be conversational and informal for some, and yes, even in edit summaries it sometimes happens. They might be thinking they have to explain every single edit they did in detail so it's not reverted or challenged by other editors, so they write long summaries.

With regards to your point on the creating a fake citation needed tag, I don't want to call this fake just because it used an old markup (there's a superscript markup) and not the standardized way. There could be multiple reasons for this: the student could have found an old model article with similar markup and copied it; they couldn't figure out how to add it on the Visual Editor so they may have improvised it; etc. I should let Icollectdeadtrees make an explanation on that.

With this said, I thank you for your time and move on from this conversation. I'll also go ahead and ask the student to delete your post on their Talk page. Thank you. Dr.ozkul (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your concerns. I am happy to clarify my use of the "citation needed" tag.

I made a thorough effort to verify the information for each book listed in the article. However, for one particular book—the one with the “citation needed” tag—I was unable to locate any publishing or verifiable information. Since the entry was already part of the article (not information that I added), I did not feel comfortable removing it entirely without further discussion or confirmation. Instead, I opted to add a "citation needed" tag. In the reason field for the citation, I included a brief explanation as to why I did this.

To apply the tag, I used the template function in my sandbox: I navigated to "Insert," selected "Templates," typed in "citation needed," and chose it from the list. Since the “Reason for citation” box is not automatically selected, I manually checked it and, as stated above, included my reason for adding the tag. My intent was simply to indicate that this book lacked verifiable sources, that is all.

After all of this, I understand that this choice was not the best approach, and I acknowledge that I made a mistake. However, it was an honest one—and not the result of AI usage. To accuse someone of AI usage is a serious allegation, and I hope this explanation makes clear that the tag was applied in good faith and was done by me—a human, not AI.

Regarding my writing style, while I do consider it somewhat personal, I will share that I am a non-traditional student with years of college coursework, including extensive English classes to my credit. I also have many years of experience as an English tutor, along with many years of professional experience working in an academic setting. Additionally, I grew up with a parent who worked as a technical editor. All of these factors have heavily influenced my writing style.

Additionally, as this was my first time editing on Wikipedia, I made an effort to be especially thorough and transparent with all my edits. This was done for a couple of reasons: out of respect for the original contributors, as I wanted clear communication on my reasoning for editing their work, and because, as Dr. Ozkul has noted, this was a class assignment, and I wanted to ensure my edits were clear and well-documented for my professor.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns. However, I can assure you that all of my edits and edit summaries were my own and not the result of AI use. Icollectdeadtrees (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

I am writing in response to the deletion of my U.S. Rural Sociology edits based on your claims of A.I. use. The claims were unsubstantiated, failing to explain why the post raised flags suggesting the use of large language models. I too share concerns about the use of AI on Wikipedia and understand the hyper-vigilance in addressing the issue. However, I see from your talk page that this is not the first time you have made unsubstantiated claims about editors' use of AI, which, as EditorSage42 has pointed out, is in violation of Wikipedia's community guidelines. This person claimed that your suspicion of their AI use was rooted in concerns about their grammar or writing style. If this applies to me, I believe it is necessary to qualify that I am a doctoral student who writes professionally. Furthermore, there is no way for me to adequately address your claim if you do not provide any clear examples of my grammar or syntax that suggest the use of AI, which you did not. I see in other correspondence you have had over the same issue that you often reference a "distinct AI tone." From my understanding, AI learns from the information it is given. If AI has developed a tone aligned with the academic writing style I have been trained in, how is this discernment meaningful? Lastly, I have seen you raising concerns about citations regarding the use of AI. My current capacity as an editor on Wikipedia is for a class assignment. Every single citation included in the U.S. Rural Sociology subsection are from documents assigned for the class I am editing this page for. With that said, I have never used Wikipedia before in my lifetime and thus do not have an understanding of what is deemed an appropriate citation. To link my citations, I simply used the cite feature and pasted the URL for the documents which were assigned to me for class reading. If that is insufficient, I am happy to bolster the citations by adding page numbers for each direct quote or more information. However, other than this HUMAN error, I see nothing suspicious about the citations used.

Again, I understand the hyper-vigilance about the use of AI. It is this understanding that makes me upset that we live in a world where I have to engage in this correspondence and results in me spending a longer time to complete a class assignment than I would have liked. My professor is aware of this issue and will corroborate my account fully. Thomas.5344 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not academic essays, so don't write them like an academic essay. Most people who do that these days are using AI, since that's the default tone of AI writing, but it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article regardless of the source. Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is appropriate for a Wikipedia article? I have never written one, only academic essays. I would have been much more receptive to you making the claim that my edits were "too academic," rather than AI generated. If there are guidelines to Wikipedia writing that you can link, I would be happy to follow them. Thomas.5344 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the WP:MOS, but the best thing to do is to actually read other Wikipedia articles, especially good and featured articles. Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what is not neutral about the highest-quality, compliant edit I made on the Coca-Cola page. It's nothing but neutral. What are your arguments even? You also stated on the actual page when undoing my edit that it's off topic. It's the most pertinent to the topic. Can you explain your shady behavior? Below is the text of the edit I made:

All ingredients in Coca-Cola's classic formula, including carbonated water, high-fructose corn syrup (or sugar in some markets), phosphoric acid, caffeine, caramel color, and natural flavors, comply with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. These components are either Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), approved as food additives under 21 CFR Part 172, or otherwise permitted for use in carbonated soft drinks.

The FDA does not approve the Coca-Cola formula as a whole but regulates its individual ingredients, ensuring they meet safety standards through scientific evaluation or historical safe use. Coca-Cola’s proprietary "natural flavors" blend, part of its secret formula, adheres to FDA labeling rules (21 CFR 101.22), which allow grouped disclosure without specifying components, and companies may add GRAS substances without notifying FDA.

Critics, including government auditors and public health experts, argue that FDA-approved additives, particularly under the GRAS process, are often inadequately tested for chronic health effects like endocrine disruption or cumulative disease risks, due to reliance on industry self-assessments and gaps in long-term toxicology data. The FDA maintains that its guidelines (e.g., Redbook toxicity tests) provide reasonable certainty of safety under intended use.

Beyond ingredient regulation, the FDA oversees Coca-Cola’s manufacturing processes to ensure product safety through routine inspections, contaminant sampling (e.g., bacteria, chemicals), and enforcement of Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for beverage processing and bottling under 21 CFR Part 129. Historical oversight included testing for trace substances like cocaine (removed from Coca-Cola by 1903, with FDA checks continuing into the 1980s). Recent voluntary recalls, such as for potential foreign materials in Sprite, Diet Coke, and Fanta Orange in 2023 and Coca-Cola products in 2025, demonstrate active FDA monitoring and Coca-Cola’s compliance with recall protocols. The Coca-Cola Company also maintains its KORE (K Coca-Cola Operating Requirements) system to align with global safety standards, including FDA regulations.

>Hello, I'm Jay8g. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard

>to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Coca-Cola formula seemed less

>than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions,

>you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jay8g Berkeleywho (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This information is completely WP:UNDUE and off topic for an article on the Coca-Cola formula. Maybe a smaller portion of that could be acceptable, but the whole thing is way off topic. It looks like you've already been advised of this on the article talk page, so I'm not sure why you're continuing to make this argument here.

On the whole, it seems like essentially all of your edits have been about making a point about FDA processes, rather than maintaining a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy. Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a paid shill. Who else are you gonna talk about when you talk about food and drug regulation? There is plenty said about the manufacturer. It's, like, a good thing for everyone. Pushing back on this is hurting Coca Cola, hurting the US government, and hurting hundreds of millions of consumers. So your actions are very questionable. Berkeleywho (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have some serious misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Have you read the links in the messages I and other people have sent you? You definitely need to read WP:RGW. Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

Thank you for reaching out and for taking the time to review my edits for Lloyd A. Carney’s Wikipedia page. I’m new to Wikipedia editing and appreciate your guidance.

For context, I’m familiar with Lloyd Carney’s work and have been working to update his page to reflect more recent accomplishments and improve structure and flow. I submitted a first draft in July 2025, and another reviewer (LuniZunie) recently noted that my initial draft read too much like a résumé, so I’ve since revised it to improve the tone.

To clarify, all research, writing, and verification of sources are my own. I did use an LLM to assist with formatting and syntax (mainly to ensure correct Wiki markup, which I have never used before) but I spent hours carefully reviewing and fact-checking every sentence and citation to avoid any fabricated or inaccurate material.

If possible, could you share any specific parts of the draft that raised concerns about AI-generated text or factual accuracy? I’d really appreciate your feedback so I can make appropriate revisions and learn how to better meet Wikipedia’s content standards.

Thank you again for your time and help.

-TheGentlestRaven TheGentlestRaven (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you ran the draft through AI, that explains why it sounds like AI. That's really not a good idea. It sure sounds like you used AI to write this response too, which is generally considered quite impolite. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jay8g.

I did not use AI to write my previous response, and I am not using AI to write this response. It is generally considered quite impolite to accuse people of using AI for their writing. I have spent countless hours on updating this page, so I do not appreciate this accusation.

I want to reiterate that I did indeed use an LLM for my draft, but this was limited to feedback on structure and to assist with generating references in the Wiki markup format. All content is my own and I thoroughly checked every reference for hallucinations. (As a matter of fact, the Ai-generated references were full of hallucinations – I just needed to understand how to structure them, and then I proceeded to do most of them manually!) I did not “run the draft through AI” and blindly copy any material generated by AI.

Again, I am kindly requesting that you share any specific parts of the draft that raised concerns about AI-generated text or factual accuracy so I can address these issues directly.

Thank you.

-TheGentlestRaven TheGentlestRaven (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it's the fact that AI doesn't actually understand Wikitext formatting (or anything really), so you really shouldn't use it for that. It tends to screw things up in predictable ways. This time, it screwed up almost all of your citations by inventing access dates way in the future, something that should have been obvious if you reviewed it as thoroughly as you're claiming. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

Thanks for pointing out the issue with the access dates in the references. I agree with you that these are hallucinations that I did not catch, and those should be fixed. (I realize now that I only checked the access date in my last citation, “access-date=27 October 2025”, which was correct. But I did not check the others as I was mostly focused on adding in the correct links,

This feedback was very helpful. I will go through the references and correct all pieces of information. Before I do so, please let me know if you have any other feedback, or if there are any resources that can guide me in formatting the references. (AI is clearly not one of them, lol.)

Thank you. TheGentlestRaven (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFB. Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

Thanks for your guidance. I've further refined the draft and redid all the citations. Can you take another look and let me know your thoughts?

Thank you. TheGentlestRaven (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {{{Jay8g}}}, it appears you removed content claiming it needs better sources. The sources cited are both the Medal of Honor museum itself, as well as a commonly accepted news source focused on military related issues. there are already sources cited elsewhere in the article that corroborate the content as well, so there should be no problem with the addition. 2600:1010:B33E:4CAE:EC4C:513:B6E7:DE4F (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the pages C-DAC Thiruvananthapuram and C-DAC Ahmedabad be merged into the main article Centre for Development of Advanced Computing. Reason: Both of these are regional centres of C-DAC and currently have very limited or no independent sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. The information they contain is primarily organizational and can be better presented within a new subsection (for example, “Centres”) in the main article. This will help consolidate redundant content, improve readability, and maintain encyclopedic structure without duplicating minor branch details. — Bech07 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, pretty sure you meant to put this on one of the article talk pages instead of my user talk page. Jay8g [V•T•E] 10:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve already added the merge proposal to the respective article’s talk page too!, but there hasn’t been any response or action yet. Could you please take a look when you get a chance? Thanks! Bech07 (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit changed "p=[x]" to "page=[x]". Do you know why? I think I'll report this as a bug since the templates themselve for cite book etc have "p=[x]" as the correct usage. - Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MODERATOR FEEDBACK Estjta (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that my edits were reverted. I did do my own research but I got flagged as using AI.

While I wasn't sure if the sources met Wikipedia's standards, I needed to complete this for my assignment.

Can you suggest where I should rewrite? Estjta (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits had basically all of the hallmarks of AI-generated text. Please do not use AI on Wikipedia (and I'm sure your teacher would tell you the same thing for your class assignments). Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. thank you Estjta (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jay8g : We noticed that you recently deleted all of our contributions with claims of “likely AI-generated student edits”. We were very surprised to see this claim as we have been editing this page over the course of several months and have yet to get any flags or concerns about AI from other editors or from the AI detection tool “pangram” that the Wiki education dashboard uses to actively check for AI use. For that reason we will revert the article back to include the edits that we have made, however, if you could provide us with specific instances of said “AI use” we would be more than happy to reevaluate those specific contributions. We appreciate your concern. Di72270 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We... have yet to get any flags or concerns about AI from other editors This is clearly false as your edits have been reverted repeatedly by other editors, including Ian (Wiki Ed), for bogus references and other issues that come along with AI use, yet you keep edit-warring to re-add your edits to the article. Regardless of what "AI detectors" say, your edits have pretty much all of the hallmarks of AI edits. Do not continue edit warring on this article.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging me on this. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it was David.Jin29's work that was flagged earlier. This is the report on the most recent version. Nothing obviously AI-generated, but still not up to the standard for Wikipedia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g, I reworked the article on Christian Frei. Please have a look at it and see if the promo tag can be removed. Thanks. Much appreciated. Best ~~~ Quaenuncabibis (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligent work assisting with citation cleanup at Clouding of consciousness. Often a thankless task, but one that historians and researchers down the line will be exceptionally grateful for, both here and across the site. CSGinger14 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently left me a comment on my edits about NBR1 suspecting use of AI in my writing. I can assure you I did the research for the information myself and would love to get feedback on what needs fixing with my writing in order to keep my work up on the page. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophgrace (talk • contribs)

Read WP:AITELLS. Your edit contains so many of the signs of AI writing that it seems highly likely to have been AI generated -- formatting errors, weird phrasing, random bold text, etc. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The boldimg was not random, I bolded significant pathways relevant to the NBR1 gene. I also am new to the topic to my phrasing could possibly seem “weird” but it is most likely due to the fact that I am unfamiliar with writing about this topic. I would appreciate specific feedback, especially if you are family with this style of writing so I will be able to revise my own work. Thank you Sophgrace (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you need to start from scratch. Read some Wikipedia articles on similar topics (ideally good and featured articles) to get an idea of how Wikipedia articles are actually written and what the appropriate tone is. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel visualization.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay8g, You left me a comment on my STX16 mentioning that it seemed I was using AI sources but I can reassure you I have been doing my research for these articles and have used read some of the resources/ references that were left on the STX16 page before I started editing. I also saw there was a problem with a citation I am a bit confused on that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itgonz (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay8g, thank you for your message. I was confused about why my part regarding educational technology had been deleted, but I am grateful for your response. I want to state that my goal was to condense information from peer-reviewed literature, specifically research by Springer Nature on learning analytics. I may not have laid everything out properly, as this is my first time making a Wikipedia entry. However, the text itself was written by me using the sources I found. I occasionally use tools like GPT during preprocessing to identify appropriate topics and areas of research, but I always revisit the original sources when writing. I may have used those sources in a manner that didn't meet Wikipedia standards, so I fully understand your suspicions. I would appreciate any feedback regarding how I should format my portion. Also, I would be grateful to hear any comments regarding how I should more specifically credit my material; I want to ensure that any contributions I make adhere to Wikipedia’s policies.Asherictive (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Asherictive[reply]

Hi Jay8g, I just wanted to follow up. Since my last message, I have conducted further research on learning analytics and on Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sourcing and formatting. I put the rewritten work together on my sandbox site, hopefully in accordance with these guidelines. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and provide feedback.

This is part of an assignment I need to submit, so I would greatly appreciate any suggestions at your earliest convenience. Thanks.Asherictive (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asherictive/sandbox Asherictive (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the chance to review. Your initial edit included chatGPT URLs, which happens when you use AI to make the citations. If you're doing this as part of a class project, your class should have taught you what to do in terms of formatting and citations. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

I appreciate your comments on my recent edit on the ECOP page. I wasn't aware that it seemed like it was done with a language model because I did not mean for it to seem that way especially because it was written in my own words. I reworked it out on my own homepage in my sandbox and got rid of some of the lists if you wanted to look at that and let me know if that looks better for you before I resubmit it to the actual article. I still have to add a few things and provide specific citations on some of the sentences, but I wanted to see if this was better. Achisteckoff (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop running Citation bot on Circle packing theorem. See User talk:Citation bot#Fake issue number and useless identifier numbers for why. And please note that you are responsible when the bot makes bad edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Do what you want, but I'd love to see consensus that these identifiers shouldn't be included in citations. Generally more information is better in cases of link rot, etc. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identifiers that lead to copies of the paper can be helpful. Identifiers that just provide an identifier and that lead only to a page listing the metadata of the reference are not; we already have metadata of the reference, so directing readers to another page of the same metadata is unhelpful (because it does not provide a unique resource beyond what's already in our article) and distracting (because it makes it harder for readers to find the identifiers that actually provide them with a copy of the reference). More, it violates WP:ELNO #1, for which there is long-established consensus, and which states that we should not make external links to sites that do not provide a unique resource beyond what is or should be already in our article.

If you're looking for more long-standing consensus, see also WP:CITEVAR which states not to make changes to reference formatting without getting consensus for your changes. In general, Citation bot's edits have not been problematic with respect to CITEVAR, but your attitude expressed here that you intend to keep running roughshod over other editors' preferences until a formal consensus is gathered to stop you is definitely problematic.

Additionally, you have not responded at all to the other part of the bug report: your bot edits are introducing fake metadata that is not part of the original publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I believe you are misinterpreting the guidelines, but I suspect this is something you and I will never see eye to eye on. CITEVAR is pretty clear on this: per WP:CITEVARYES, "The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information". I already mentioned on the Citation Bot page that WP:ELNO does not apply to references.

The other part is probably a bug, but it is most likely a metadata issue rather than a bot bug, something that I'm not sure how to fix. Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g,

The sources that I used are very valid sources. Did whoever deleted them actually check the sources?

I will admit that I took the words of the authors, rewrote it myself, and then put both the original and my rewording through Google in order to achieve better wording. (In case you did not notice I tend to be very verbose.) I absolutely meant no harm whatsoever in doing that. Since I provided what I thought was a proper source for each part that I added, I completely mistakenly thought that was acceptable. I can not possibly apologize enough for my mistake.

Tiredofurwhining (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... if you put it through Google AI, that's probably why it sounds like AI. Try again using your own words. Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I just add sources to the information already in the article? I believe that the sources that I have accurately describe what is currently stated in the article. Tiredofurwhining (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you find parts of the article that need additional or better sources (but don't just add sources for the sake of adding sources, for things that are already properly referenced). Is this part of some sort of class project? If so, you should have your teachers contact WP:EDUN for support. Jay8g [V•T•E] 05:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help and the pointers Jay8g. I will reread what is written, revert to my wording alone with the citations that I have and try again. I will also read the help articles that you suggested and practice in the sand box!

I love dye sublimation and really wanted to better the article. I still hold a firm belief that I can better it.  :-).

Thank you again,

Kathleen Tiredofurwhining (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you and yours a fantastic Christmas (or holiday season for those who don’t celebrate) and all the best for 2026. 🎄 ❄️☃️ Here’s to a collaborative, constructive year ahead — with good faith, good edits, and just enough discussion to get things done! (and here's Sir Nils Olav inspecting his troops... one of my favourite POTDs) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g, I wanted to follow up regarding the recent reverts to edits and citations I added to Don Norman’s article.

I’m hoping you can help me better understand the reasoning behind the removals, as I’m having trouble identifying the specific policy basis for them. The sources include peer-reviewed academic research and independent mainstream publications (e.g., Fast Company), which generally meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources and verifiability.

I understand that editors may reasonably disagree, but without a more specific explanation, it’s difficult to assess whether the concern is source reliability, undue weight, neutrality, relevance, or something else. That lack of clarity makes it challenging to revise the content to align with both your expectations and Wikipedia’s consensus-building norms.

I’ve also noticed from your Talk page that this aligns with similar feedback you’ve received in the past across your edits, yet another reason why I’d appreciate more concrete guidance on how you’re applying Wikipedia policies here so we can get on the same page and align as a community.

I’m very open to collaborating and would welcome concrete, policy-based feedback on individual citations. Thanks, and please know I appreciate your time. ~2026-24288 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a bug report to User talk:Citation bot regarding edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Programming_Languages_(conference)&curid=5396226&diff=1331438975&oldid=1331096411 : this implicitly also covers the elements of the previous Citation bot edit which I had reverted. RW Dutton (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jay8g. I would like to reiterate my belief that you should self-revert at Zero trust architecture. While you are correct that it is edit warring, in the strictest sense, WP:3RR was never broken, and the editor has been candid and cordial with me on the user's talk page and on the article talk page. But so as to avoid continuing this edit war, I would like to repeat my request that you self-revert. Thank you. guninvalid (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Gpildush guninvalid (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include a better version of that content that's fine, but I'm not going to reintroduce it in its current form. Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ApoieRacional adding unsupported content with LLM. You haven't been involved in this for a while, but since I quoted you, thought I should include you. LordCollaboration (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you advise me why you have removed Henry Walker from the Mansfield page. Henry Walker is recognisable. His name is depicted on crisps throughout the UK. I think that to remove it isn’t giving information accurately. I have reinserted it. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they're notable, create the article first. Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content that was removed while labeling as promotional was correct and sourced to some extent. Everything was well sourced. Could you please clarify which parts were considered promotional so they can be rewritten in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines? Nadirposh (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire thing was written in a highly promotional manner. It reads more like a resume than a neutral article. Do you have a WP:COI with the article subject? Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, thank you for clarification. My main concern is that despite referencing everything, and that too about a prominent figure, my content got removed. I hope that you will undo the content as it is well backed up, and also Please read some of the sourced articles so you could know about it and may undo the changes you have done. Looking for your response! Thank you Nadirposh (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:NPOV is a core principle of Wikipedia and promotional content is not allowed. Do you have a connection to the article subject? Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you remove the informations provided on Skydrive ?

i added information pulled out of the press and corrected errors on the page.

The information level on Skydrive is today much lower than on other eVtol manufacturer.

what is the intent to remove fact checked informations ? Evtolgeek (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been highly promotional. And what is your connection to User:Hikoukimania? You showed up to reinstate their edits the instant I gave them a paid editing warning. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]