June 2026
Hello, I'm Gnomingstuff. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- You did not pointed to any specific text or diffs to support this. Per WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, blanket warning templates shouldn't be applied without evidence of actual policy violations in the article. I'm happy to fix any markup issues or tighten the wording if you show me the exact lines that need work. Enakpat18 (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Funny how you arent denying using LLMs, but rather you are asking for help in making it look less like LLM. Masterhatch (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Nothing funny about it. I won't engage with accusations of bad faith. That is all.
- Also, you must have trouble reading b/c I didn't ask for help. Enakpat18 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- "I'm happy to fix any markup issues or tighten the wording if you show me the exact lines that need work." That sounds like asking for help cleaning up the LLM to me. And you are still not denying the use of LLM. Just sayin'. Anyways, 'nuff said. Masterhatch (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- OK it is not true that I ever copy-pasted prose from an LLM and published it on Wikipedia. I may have used Grok a long time ago to find a source or two to verify certain claims on another page (not Cathy Caruth's page), but this isn't against the rules (at least to my knowledge) if the editor verifies the reliability of the source and confirms it isn't hallucinated. I also noted in the reference for those sources (there were only one or two) that it came from Grok which is why an AI tag came up next to the reference automatically, but I wasn't fully aware of the rules at that time and didn't know that was problematic, and I wouldn't do that again.
- The issue here is more that the editor is accusing me of copy-pasting LLM-generated prose and publishing it on Wikipedia but I never did this.
- When the user continues to use markdown issues as evidence of copy-pasting LLM-generated prose, I don't understand if they are referring to the [a] [b] [c] superscripts. These are not evidence of LLM-generated prose. These are quotations I manually found and added from published articles in support of the claims. Enakpat18 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- "I'm happy to fix any markup issues or tighten the wording if you show me the exact lines that need work." That sounds like asking for help cleaning up the LLM to me. And you are still not denying the use of LLM. Just sayin'. Anyways, 'nuff said. Masterhatch (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Funny how you arent denying using LLMs, but rather you are asking for help in making it look less like LLM. Masterhatch (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Caroline Levine
that wasn't all that was broken in the citation btw. Morwen (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Your nomination of Cathy Caruth has failed
Your good article nomination of the article Cathy Caruth has 
failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chao Garden -- Chao Garden (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)