User talk:MSK

Note: ZeroEntry's mentor ClaudineChionh is away.

What are the basic editing I can start with --ZeroEntry (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you're going to do anti-vandalism patrolling on the article for improvement, you need to use clear, useful edit summaries when reverting, and leave appropriate warning notices. We're encouraging newbies to edit the article. Reverting them and not explaining why sends seriously mixed messages. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for being my mentor. I've been looking at edits of other people to learn more on editing. There is one thing I noticed - when larger or longer edits are involved, some editors spread them across several edits. In other cases some do one big edit.

Is there a preferred method? --Jimjons (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Not really, do it how you wish. Please note that it can make it easier for other editors when it is seperated, but there is no restriction against Large edits given they still meet editorial Standards. Thanks, Strongshorts (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Strongshorts.

Thanks for the info. Very helpful.

Another question (2 actually):

1. I tried to do an edit with a word processor and then paste it to the Wikipedia page I'm editing. I got a warning message. If the text is mine and I use Word out of convenience, am I allowed to copy/paste?
2. I know it's a bit soon, but I saw on your page that you use tools like Twinkle and others, and also read about them a bit so my question is where can I find tools that help with edits and an explanation of what they are / how to use them, and am I allowed to use them, do I need to gain more edits, etc?

Jimjons (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. It is fine, however as part of this whole AI craze thing that's been going on, Microsoft's crammed AI "tools" into every application imaginable, including Word--be careful not to use that, since it is disallowed.
2. Tool discoverability has been a headache for a long while now, but if you look on relevant guide pages (e.g. WP:RCP#Tools if you want to do anti-vandalism work) there will usually be a list of relevant scripts or gadgets that you can use. (Wikipedia:User scripts/List also has a list of all scripts.)

msk 20:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've been the second person to decline my draft for LLM-generated text when I wrote it by hand. I'm a bit confused as to what's tipping it off to appearing AI-generated, and how I might alter the article so that it isn't marked as such. Doikcorridor (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've undone the decline; I had thought the original draft was AI generated and didn't find any contesting of the AI decline on your talk page so I assumed it was valid. Sorry about that. msk 01:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate it! And no worries, thank you for your time. Doikcorridor (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

HI again, I"m going over the articles that need work done as part of my self training. I came across an article that needs updating. (Qaym, a Saudi-based restaurant review service).. There is not a lot of info on it, but their linkedin page and RocketReach both say the service shut down in 2022. I can't find any other source on this. Is it ok to say that according to LnkedIn and/or RocketReach, the service shut down in 2022? I know they are normally not acceptable sources but for this info can they be used? --Jimjons (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that company is notable at all (that is, has enough coverage to justify an article), as such, I've nominated it for deletion. msk 22:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. And I agree - the page is weak. Just for future reference in more prominent cases, can LinkedIn, rocket reach and other such sources be used in any capacity as a source? Jimjons (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If a company is notable, there should be at least some amount of industry coverage/public legal paperwork/press releases of their closing, so you probably won't even have a scenario where citing LinkedIn is needed--in any case, LinkedIn, RocketReach, and similar should all be avoided as sources, since they do not undergo editorial oversight. modestly_scary^kookaburras 01:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for your review on my page:

Draft:Oracle Developer 2000

You declined the submission because of use of LLM. Since I am not a Fluent English speaker, I sometimes give it specific sentences so that they would sounds more native English, but the page was written by me, as I had the "privilege" of Using Oracle Developer 2000 as a young developer back in the days.

Can you please point me to specific areas where you think I need to revise, or should improve?

Thank you for your help!

YaEsOtoño (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my comments about FOMO Baku:

1. I wrote the entry for FOMO Baku myself; I did not use artificial intelligence. 2. I verified the sources personally and take full responsibility for the content. 3. Any editor is welcome to check the sources. If my block is lifted, I will make any necessary corrections myself. Orkhano (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've moved it to your userspace, where you can work on it in peace. Right now it does not show the nightclub meeting WP:NCORP, and it barely meets WP:NBUILDING -- given that it was ranked among the best clubs in the world, I would expect there to be more significant coverage that hasn't been discovered yet (perhaps in Azerbaijani). If you have any questions reply here, and I will try to answer them. modestly_scary^kookaburras 19:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I put a lot of work into this article. I was updating the scores. I feel like this article has been treated a bit unfairly. Can’t we edit my version instead? :/ Orkhano (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any scores being updated here, and the text reads like it is AI-generated (as is the edit summary). On the matter of AI use, that is also wholesale disallowed from making article content on azwiki, thus I've also asked on their noticeboards for assistance in cleaning up there. modestly_scary^kookaburras 21:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand the process. Can you point out the work you find inappropriate? It will be a bit easier Sid Prayag (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Quoting from my edit summary: [...] I am assuming you are taking responsibility for this content. This [userspace draft] may be moved back to mainspace when all content authored by Kiilvish is removed. mw:Who Wrote That? may be useful. modestly_scary^kookaburras 16:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello MSK, thank you for reviewing Draft:Jaeyeol Han. Could you clarify which passages raised the AI concern, and what specific changes would address it before resubmission? I am the subject of the draft and have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page. Thank you. NeueMnemosyne (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Rewrite the draft by hand, without any AI assistance at all. modestly_scary^kookaburras 14:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

NeueMnemosyne Also, please disclose that you're using two accounts on your userpage. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 14:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

How can I make a page on something --Interesting article Niviarsiaq (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you check ✔it after I am done and make sure that I did well --Interesting article Niviarsiaq (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, though making a new page is among the hardest tasks on Wikipedia -- I recommend you read Help:Your first article. modestly_scary^kookaburras 18:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

when I did edits without an account most people just deleted it except for Hundred revision and visions@ Interesting article Niviarsiaq (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello --Mhliph (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Who walk on the moon --Mhliph (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

MSK - we have re-written our Marshall Steel draft in its entirety. Still confused as to which specific parts were determined to be AI but made sure to leave in some of the color and sacrifice some of the pith and precision of the previous which I am guessing triggered the rejection. This is our third attempt and hoping we can pass it through this time ;).- thank you for your time and all your contributions to wikipedia.

Draft:Marshall Steel Company Limited StephMarshall (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@StephMarshall Curious, who are you referring to by "we"? modestly_scary^kookaburras 17:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I worked with my sister on this to help review each line and re-draft. StephMarshall (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll try to look over the draft and provide feedback this afternoon (in a couple of hours). modestly_scary^kookaburras 17:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much. No rush obvs and genuinely appreciate all of what you people do. StephMarshall (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

FYI - i'll got back in and repopulate the wikilinks if the copy is approved. StephMarshall (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

MSK - sorry to bother you again. I am not sure if you get pinged when I edit the post. I just did a final pass (found a few small things and a section that had become a bit bloated with uncecessary biographicals) and added the company logo and a photo. All noted in the wizard and editor. Hope that is all ok, and we are done. Thanks again. StephMarshall (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello MSK, I was notified of your October 30 edit to Michael Cranford, with the summary linking to WP:LLMPRV. I made the corrections that were just rolled back because there were factual problems in the last series of edits, and there was carefully sourced material in the most recent version that filled important gaps. I am the subject of the article, I performed the revisions, and AI was only involved to make sure I conformed to Wikipedia guidelines and that the sources were accurate. So now, for example, the article places my philosophy degree at USC, but in fact I received it at UC Irvine. It reinstated material that wasn’t properly sourced, like the Biola teaching. So the article again contains factual errors and misses recent, objective sourced information that people researching my work will expect to locate. Could you clarify which contributions you considered eligible for presumptive removal and whether there is an underlying discussion I should read? Thank you, Michael Theinternetguru (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The 2026 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:

1. Generalissima (submissions) with 1077 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
2. Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1046 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
3. MCE89 (submissions) with 762 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
4. A.Cython (submissions) with 606' tournament points
5. Vestrian24Bio (submissions) with 537 tournament points
6. Reconrabbit (submissions) with 349 tournament points
7. BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 297 tournament points
8. Arconning (submissions) with 183 tournament points

Our three high scorers in the final round, who each got over 1,000 points, happen to all be among the top 8 as well:

1. Generalissima (submissions) with 2846 round points from 40 good articles, 4 pieces of featured content (including 2 featured articles), 11 DYK articles, and various reviews.
2. Bgsu98 (submissions) with 2603 round points from 43 good articles, 5 pieces of featured content (1 featured article and 4 featuyred lists), and various reviews.
3. Vestrian24Bio (submissions) with 1141 round points from 20 good articles, a good topic, a featured list, and 30 good article reviews.

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 29 featured articles, 8 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 150 good articles, 43 good topic articles, 189 article reviews, 28 did you know articles, and 4 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field over the course of the competition.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the following prizes:
  • The featured article prize, for 12 featured articles.
  • The featured picture prize, for submitting the only featured picture for the second year in a row.
  • The good article prize, for 82 good articles.
• Bgsu98 (submissions) wins the following prizes:
  • The featured list prize, for 21 featured lists.
  • The featured content reviewer prize, for 72 featured article reviews.
• Vestrian24Bio (submissions) wins the following prizes:
  • The featured topic prize, for 8 pages in featured topics.
  • The good topic prize, for 26 pages in good topics.
  • The good article reviewer prize, for 84 good article reviews.
• BabbaQ (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 9 ITN pages.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 47 DYK pages.

A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:

• A.Cython (submissions), for 20 good-topic articles in round 5.
• Olliefant (submissions), who withdrew during the competition but who had 38 featured-content reviews in round 2. Olliefant also had 43 good article reviews in round 1.
• The Robot Parade (submissions), for 5 ITN pages in round 1.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. We are also looking for an experienced editor to help write the bimonthly newsletter. If you would like to help write next year's newsletters, please contact Epicgenius at his talk page.

The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2027 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

In our November 2026 newsletter, there was a mistake in calculating the final tournament point rankings (which have been updated here). We regret the error.

1. Generalissima (submissions) with 1461 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
2. Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1302 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
3. Vestrian24Bio (submissions) with 793 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
4. MCE89 (submissions) with 762 tournament points
5. A.Cython (submissions) with 606 tournament points
6. BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 425 tournament points
7. Reconrabbit (submissions) with 349 tournament points
8. Arconning (submissions) with 183 tournament points

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Stone Key Partners. Because you closed the discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CSGinger14 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@CSGinger14 did you ask Explicit to restore the page to your draftspace? AFAIK you only asked them to reopen the discussion, which they said no to; however they never said they would not WP:RESTORE. It would probably be more efficient to restore, implement the sources you find, and move back to mainspace, rather than a long-winded DRV filing. modestly_scary^kookaburras 03:38, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@MSK Thanks, see my response at the DRV.

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello i had edited a document or page a long time ago now i dont know what changes i made tell me how to see what changes i made i have forgotten --Jinnahjatt (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

See Special:Contributions/Jinnahjatt; I presume you're looking for this edit? msk 17:00, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

yeah, thank you, but how did you find it? Jinnahjatt (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

When you look at a user's page, e.g. User:Jinnahjatt, there should be a sidebar to the right titled "tools"; among those there will be a link to "User contributions" -- click on that to see all edits made by a user. msk 17:05, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kia ora, Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ) are running a quick, anonymous survey to help us learn more about Wikipedia editors in Aotearoa New Zealand. As a volunteer-led organisation, our role is to support the editing community in Aotearoa. Feedback received through this survey will help us in ensuring our messages and events are reaching the right people, along with identifying the gaps we need to address. Click here to take part. 01:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Just wondering why Context engineering was tagged by you as "possibly AI generated". It's a redirect; how can a redirect be AI generated? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:40, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah yep, that's a bug I need to fix with my script. Sorry about that. msk 16:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good evening,

You undid an edit on Bono State that was a clean up of the article because it did not meet wiki's policy. I saw your comment and I believeI miscommunicated why I undid the edit. I meant the article before the edits on September 27th contained grammarly LLM and did not meet wiki's policy. I really took the time to clean up the page and all my edits were undone early today. If there are any issues with the article or the information, kindly let me know because I have been trying to make sure it meets wiki's policy. Thank you for reviewing and assisting. Oti Ne Asare (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello MSK, Thank you for reviewing Draft:Jafar (Pashtun tribe). I have manually rewritten the article getting rid of the LLM generated content. I've also cited the primary sources mentioned in the references section more thoroughly. I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look. Gazetteeranalyst204 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi MSK, thanks for reviewing Draft:Rocket Science Group. I removed the LLM-generated text and rewritten the article myself from the cited sources. I also explained the changes on the draft's talk page. I resubmitted the draft for review - could you review it again and approve? Thank you APV161999 (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Rocket Science Group APV161999 (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi MSK, I hope you are well. I wanted to double check if you were able to take a look at the Draft:Rocket Science Group again? Would appreciate if there's further feedback APV161999 (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I got a notification saying that a draft I submitted for the page listed above (Draft:Corlys Velaryon - Wikipedia) which said that I had generated text using AI. I did not use an LLM to write or edit this draft but I am still happy to edit this - could you point out which sections of the article were flagged as generated by an LLM? Thank you! Zacy-creggs0402 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looking closer I don't think it is AI; however I did notice that the In the books and Television adaptions sections seem to be closely paraphrased from Fandom and A Wiki of Ice and Fire, respectively, which consitutes a copyright violation--Fandom is fine with attribution, however AWOIAF does not release its content under a free (Wikipedia-compatible) license and thus would necessarily be removed. Multiple edits you made to the draft triggered "Paste Check" (which detects when large amounts of text is pasted in) which I initially assumed was you pasting in AI-generated text but could also be explained by you pasting in the plot. Before I do any cleanup, is my assessment (that you copied text from Fandom and AWOIAF) correct? msk 15:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yes I did use the A Wiki of Ice and Fire as a basis and paste in a few paragraphs but did rewrite everything in my own words. Zacy-creggs0402 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, further to this, I've made additional edits to rewrite every section as much as possible. Let me know if this is substantial. Zacy-creggs0402 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I recommend you cut down both the Television adaptation and In the books sections significantly to around 800 words each, give or take--from what I can surmise the books and the TV shows do not take place in the same universe (or at the very least, based off of different unreliable "accounts"). While cutting down, more context to Game of Thrones in general should be added. Speaking as a person who has never watched GoT or read the books, I am confused from the onset what these plot sections are about--what kind of world was Corlys born into? Who is Lord Daemon Velaryon? Where is Westeros, and what is it like? (You don't have to write all of this--wikilinks to other articles can also help explain/make things clearer, e.g. I could link to Westeros in addition to explaining it in prose, so curious readers can find out more.) Most articles on characters also have a conception section; I found some sources that might be useful for that: (Having 2 subsections, one for Corlys in the book, one for Corlys in the TV show, is probably a good idea, though I couldn't find any sources discussing George R.R. Martin's creation of Corlys outside of the TV show.)

• https://www.thewrap.com/house-of-the-dragon-ryan-condal-interview-time-jumps-casting/
• https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/aug/16/steve-toussaint-reveals-racist-abuse-after-being-cast-in-house-of-the-dragon
• https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/house-of-the-dragon-george-rr-martin-new-book-boycott-coauthors-racism-1235388107/
• https://ew.com/tv/house-of-the-dragon-house-velaryon-race-change-explained/
• https://deadline.com/2021/02/house-of-the-dragon-rhys-ifans-steve-toussaint-eve-best-sonoya-mizuno-cast-game-of-thrones-prequel-hbo-lord-corlys-velaryon-sea-snake-1234692290/
• https://www.thewrap.com/house-of-the-dragon-velaryons-black-reason-why/

msk 23:56, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for this, I've implemented the suggestions you put in here and shortened the word count as much as possible. Zacy-creggs0402 (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear MSK,

Can you give me any advice on how to proceed with the BAPI draft (the one previously known as "BAPI – Runway denial bomb")? My plan is to start with the infobox and the three intro paragraphs, sort those, and then go on to one or two sections at a time.

Thanks for letting me carry on with the draft. You could have blocked my account at any point. I'm grateful for the opportunity to finish the draft and I'd like to respond properly to your comments.

I'm an investigative journalist by trade, specialising in the military. I've been working on BAPI for approximately ten months. I got in touch with three of the major libraries in Brazil, and they were very helpful: they provided some of the material and put me in touch with a number of people who had private collections of military literature. I've also purchased the digital editions of a number of magazines.

All in all, I ended up with about 175 books, magazines, and other documents. Not all of that could be used in this article. Many of the docs referred to the bomb in passing. These references occasionally helped me find other sources, but they weren't used to substantiate detailed assertions. Tracking down the docs and checking what they said was very time consuming.

I've been on Wikipedia for about 17 years, having written 207 articles and done significant work on about 100 others. My created pages are listed here:

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/sr.wikipedia.org/Kadzo

Some BAPI sources refer to the 1989 proposal, others to the later specification. I'm happy to amend those sections; I just need to be clear about the distinction between the two.To describe how the bomb was intended to work doesn't in any way imply that that capability was in fact demonstrated in service.

If you've got the time to read through the opening bits, could you identify a sentence that needs fixing and let me know what the problem is? That would be useful in the case of an English issue, a technical issue or a problem with the source. If it's just a bit formulaic, then knowing the exact sentence would allow me to go to the original and rephrase it in a clearer way.

I'll do my utmost to abide by Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I'm not in any way attempting to spam, to disrupt the work of other editors or to go back in and restore material without first addressing their objections. What I want to know is what I've got wrong and then to put it right.

I'm sorry things have got to this point. I hope your comments will help me finish the draft and avoid the same problems in future. Thank you for your time.

Kind regards, --Kadzo (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi MSK, I received your message. Are you referring to my recent edits in the sandbox, or to the article? I really don’t know where it considered as using LLM. I'd be grateful if you could point me to something specific. ——— A675974811 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to your edits to User:A675974811/sandbox, where you inserted non-wikitext markup, which almost always points to AI use. FYI--using LLMs and other AIs (which includes Google Translate, which is now just a LLM under the hood) for wikitext/table formatting is not an exception to WP:NOLLM. msk 19:46, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @MSK I would like you to reconsider the issue of the LLM in O Tempo Não Para. I’ve added some comments to make it easier to understand the research I conducted, with excerpts in Portuguese.

The original version is only 5,000 bytes, while this one is 18,000. I searched through materials in the digital newspaper archive, specifically the 1989 edition of the newspaper O Liberal, to ground the review in its historical context. I looked through the sections on popular culture and cultural legacy. The other instance also involves research based on the newspaper O Liberal; simply consult the transcript of the newspaper’s issue 22,185, dated January 15, 1989: (ref. number 14): "Se alguém tem alguma dúvida de que Cazuza foi a melhor coisa que aconteceu no ano passado, é só ouvir “O Tempo Não Pára”, novo disco deste cantor e compositor. Trata-se do registro em vinil de um dos melhores shows do ano, gravado em outubro na temporada de Cazuza no Canecão, mostrado recentemente via Rede Globo. No repertório, sucessos como “Ideologia”, “Codinome Beija-Flor”, “O Nosso Amor a Gente Inventa”, “Exagerado” e “Faz Parte do Meu Show”. Cazuza faz da poesia sua arma principal, como define em um verso da faixa-título do disco, “mas se você achar que eu estou derrotado, saiba que ainda estão rolando os dados, porque o tempo não pára”."

It was serious research work. I appreciate the point, but I ask that you reconsider. Mtvdanilo (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello MSK,

Thank you for reviewing my submission.

Since the draft was declined, I have substantially revised it. I reviewed the historical information, strengthened the references, checked claims against published sources, and removed or corrected material that was not adequately supported.

I have now resubmitted the draft and would appreciate another review. If any issues remain, I would be grateful for specific guidance on how to address them.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Marouane El Alaoui (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

hi, i am harbordelsol, who is finishing up the article for glitzae because he has not been active for a few days. this is not me requesting you to accept it. Harbordelsol (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I've done a quick rework of this article after noticing the LLM template you placed on it. I want to make sure what I did is adequate before I remove the template. I left most of the infobox intact. Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks for catching that.

P.S., great bird pics on your user page. Theemausoliam (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the LLMPROD. Thank you for your cleanup! msk 02:00, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure, happy editing! Theemausoliam (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've also done some work on Diversey Driving Range. I kept a few sentences that I felt were verified by the sources, but I've also put in a few more secondary sources to better establish notability. That's probably the last one from this batch that I'll work on. Thanks. Theemausoliam (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/AlbertaHistory2026. As you also warned them, I’m just requesting your input. All the best. Sunshinezguy (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Can I please get help in finalizing the article for Brian Lutes? --CrackerNinja (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

First, do you have a conflict of interest (COI) with Brian Lutes? That could mean you know him personally, are employed by him, or worked for him, or even paid by him. If you do have a COI with him, you are required to disclose it--add {{User COI|1=Brian Lutes}} to your user page.

Some other notes for the article:

• The References section seems like it is AI generated--using AI to format citations is not an allowed use of AI, as is using it to write article text.
• Large portions of the text has an inappropriate tone, e.g. Taking much needed time out to recuperate and regroup, Lutes spent much of his time on his horse ranch going to horse shows and rodeo's before transitioning into filmmaking.--"much needed" is editorializing and is not a neutral descriptor. This sentence is also unsourced--see the next point.
• Multiple paragraphs are unsourced, and since Brian Lutes is a living person, our BLP policiy applies, meaning all text must sourced inline, and unsourced text may be removed. You will either have to remove all unsourced text, or find sources to support all of it.
• Discogs and IMDB are both user-generated and are thus unreliable and should not be used.

msk 20:49, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear MSK,

I have completed the planned additions to BAPI (bomb). Thank you for allowing me to continue working on the article and for your earlier comments, which I have tried to address during the revisions. If you have time, could you please look at the article in its current, complete form? I would greatly value your considered opinion and assessment following these additions and corrections.

In particular, I would like to know whether I have now addressed your earlier concerns about passages that appeared to have been generated by AI. If you still notice any problematic wording, it would help if you could identify the specific sentences and explain what needs attention, so I can revise them further. The same applies to any remaining problems with technical claims or the use of sources.

During my research, I had hoped to find more detailed information about BAPI itself. However, the literature I was able to obtain contains limited information about this bomb, and many sources mention it only in passing. I have tried to draw as much useful information as possible from the available material, while carefully distinguishing the original proposal from later specifications and what the sources actually confirm. I hope the article now provides a sufficiently informative and reliable overview of the subject.

I would also appreciate your view on whether this way of working—adding material gradually, checking claims against the sources and addressing specific concerns—is an appropriate approach for my future articles. Your advice would help me understand which aspects of my work to retain and which need more attention.

I have left the work-in-progress template at the top of the article for now, while I complete the final checks and any further corrections. If you have additional concerns, I will do my best to address them. Once I have heard your views and completed any final revisions, I will remove the template to mark the completion of this work on the article.

Thank you for your time, help and patience.

Kind regards, --Kadzo (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks good to me. By chance, are you using AI to write your edit summaries? (there are no rules against this, though it can cause some editors to think that the edit itself is AI generated, even though it is not) msk 01:15, 13 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear MSK,

Thanks very much for taking the time to read my article BAPI (bomb). Just to let you know I've taken the work in progress template away from the top of the article. I've completed all of the additions I'd planned and others are of course free to go ahead and make any further changes they see fit.

There's one other suggestion I'd like to make for your consideration: would a more descriptive title, such as BAPI (anti-runway bomb), be of any use? I'd be quite happy for you to make that call.

There are a whole variety of bombs out there really (penetration bombs, hand grenades, free-fall bombs, glide bombs, thermobaric bombs and other types of bombs). BAPI has a very specific purpose which is to disable runways. My thought was that if you included that purpose in the title it would immediately tell the reader what the article was about.

You've added a brief description stating what it is for which I think is useful. I suspect that when people are browsing through search results they tend to look at the title more than the description underneath. Someone searching for an anti-runway weapon in particular may well find a more descriptive title to be preferable.

I build and maintain a number of websites myself and from experience know that clear, descriptive titles can go a long way to helping people find what they're looking for. That's the reason for my suggestion. I fully appreciate that Wikipedia has its own article naming conventions and you may well be right to keep the current title.

Personally I'm happy with either title. I'll always be able to find the article if I've got any further info to add or corrections to make. My preference is really just for the benefit of the reader who is looking for information on weapons designed to damage or disable runways and doesn't already know it's called BAPI.

If you think a title change would be appropriate, I wondered whether it might be convenient to do it now whilst the article is still fresh. Otherwise I'm quite happy to leave the current title as it is.

Thanks very much for your time and assistance. That's just a fairly straightforward suggestion based on my experience of websites and I'd completely respect whatever you decide to do.

Kind regards,--Kadzo (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2026 (UTC)Reply