User talk:204.16.123.149: Difference between revisions

 

Line 70: Line 70:

Apologies for reverting your edits to [[Richard Blumenthal]]. I was in the middle of re-reviewing your changes/my revert and was about to revert myself when your restored it to your version. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 20:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting your edits to [[Richard Blumenthal]]. I was in the middle of re-reviewing your changes/my revert and was about to revert myself when your restored it to your version. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 20:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for that. I appreciate it. [[Special:Contributions/204.16.123.149|204.16.123.149]] ([[User talk:204.16.123.149#top|talk]]) 23:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for that. I appreciate it. [[Special:Contributions/204.16.123.149|204.16.123.149]] ([[User talk:204.16.123.149#top|talk]]) 23:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on JB Pritzker. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (204.16.123.149) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you’re logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Again, welcome! m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 12:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Driftingdrifting. An edit that you recently made to Sinéad_O’Connor seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Welcome, but please do not use large language models (like chatGPT on wikipedia. In particular, not for sources. I reverted your edits because while there are some probably ‘good edits’ buried in there, I can’t differentiate them easily from where references are being ‘invented’ or misrepresented. Please edit as yourself Driftingdrifting (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here as well since you won’t get a notification on my talk page as an IP editor:

Several of your edits have references that have either ‘gpt’ in them, or more recently ‘auto1..2..3’. It suggests to me (and you are at least partially confirming in your response to me on my talk page) that AI is being used to find, replace, select & restructure references programmatically. Doing some spot checking, you are correct that your reference links generally seem to exist, but if AI is being used to generate the references, then there are no guarantees that will always be true. More worrying, it removes the human editor decision about which citations should be included, and introduces the possibility that the references provided while real, don’t support the points in the paragraph they are intended to support. Spot checking a few of your recent articles, I *do* see evidence of this where you have either replaced a citation that supported a fact with one that didn’t, or you have added content that isn’t supported by the reference you provided.

You are also changing articles very rapid-fire, with dozens of consecutive edits with meaningful and sometimes large edits occurring at rates sometimes exceeding one per minute. Knowing that the references you are providing are at least partially AI directed and thus questionable, it is prudent to remove what appears to be AI generated content.

It might be ok in some situations to use AI essentially as a search engine simply to find sources for you, but you would need to manually do all the steps after that including verifying the validity of the link (including its contents) just like you would if you had found the reference in a search engine but that does not appear to be what is happening here. Please do not use AI to direct edits on wikipedia.

Driftingdrifting (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Driftingdrifting, you are not hearing me. I have not used AI to direct edits on Wikipedia. I have verified the validity of everything I have posted. I have not added any content that isn’t supported by a valid cited source, and I challenge you to point to even one instance where I did so. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the GPT and Auto Tagging on references, and/or explain some of your process in terms of how AI is being used when you are making these long edit streams? I’m not trying to give you a hard time (and the vast, vast majority of your edits look constructive), and you are free to just ignore me but what I am telling you is that the way you are editing in places looks like its some level of AI directed. I’m not going to chase you around reverting you, I’ll take you at your word, but doubt that I’m the only person who will eventually raise the question.

To your challenge. Taking like two minutes to look through your recent article changes: diff

worked for [[LesserEvil]], a snack company owned by his father Charles Coristine.<ref name=”:1″ />

The linked reference says absolutely nothing about LesserEvil, or his father Charles Coristine. I’d guess that I’ll find more of these if I dig, but it is incredibly time consuming to roll through dozens and dozens of rapid fire edits (which was my point). Driftingdrifting (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that you are not trying to give me a hard time.

To your question: I did not add the sentence you are asking about to Edward Coristine. I modified it slightly, but it was placed there by another editor. You are right. The cited source did not support the sentence. I just removed the sentence.

It looks to me like all my edits on Edward Coristine are good. I do not believe that I used AI at all in editing that page. I used it a little bit to find sources for Sinead O’Connor. You are correct that I tend to make flurries of edits very rapidly; that does not necessarily mean that am using AI (which I use very rarely). It does mean that I don’t like shoddy writing and am not very patient. Also, I use reFill to fill in footnotes.

Hope that helps. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good, and thanks for engaging me in the conversation it got me looking at the right parts of your edit history. I spent a bit of time this afternoon time digging through your edits and you are absolutely making wikipedia better. Happy editing (and consider creating an account!) Driftingdrifting (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to engage in the conversation with me also. Appreciated. And I also appreciate your desire to protect the encyclopedia (although I admit I got frustrated with you earlier). We’re good. 🙂 204.16.123.149 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Driftingdrifting has said, your edits on Sinéad O’Connor also include references that have GPT referenced in their URLs, which obviously raises flags for other editors. Likewise, you cause difficulties for editors when you make several changes to different parts of an article in one edit. E.g., your most recent edit fixes a grammatical error (good), introduces references with AI-generated references (bad), and introduces WP:UNDUE trivia (O’Connor was a smoker? And?) If you get reverted, don’t re-revert, take it to the Talk page, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Lastly, I’d strongly recommend creating an account. If nothing else, it makes it easier to communicate, and hides your IP address. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I already went over this once. There are no AI-generated references. And as to the smoking, I don’t see it as trivial. She died of COPD. I think it’s relevant. And there was certainly no need to revert every single edit I made just because you didn’t like some of them. Anyway, I give up. Not worth the drama. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to New York State Senate, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don’t worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 17:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One reason many of your edits are showing up on our anti-vandalism tools (and getting noticed by the people above) is because you’re unregistered and making changes that aren’t normal for unregistered users. That’s not a bad thing — you can be unregistered if you want — but I just wanted to give you some context. I noticed you making constructive contributions, and I want to thank you for it 🙂 If you want to be bothered less when making constructive edits, consider registering. Take care —tony 01:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, Tony. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also encourage making an account; I’ve seen productive IPs get mass reverted just because they made a controversial edit and somebody with power tools spent half a second before deciding that the IP in question was a vandal. In any case, happy edits. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jähmefyysikko. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, regardless of whether or not you have an account, don’t disrupt the site. Cheers! drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 14:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m PEPSI697. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fred Risser, but you didn’t provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it’s important that article content be verifiable. If you’d like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Dr vulpes. I noticed that you recently removed content from Shannen Doherty without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don’t worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Edward Coristine. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Muffin(Spreading democracy, one edit at a time) 02:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin(Spreading democracy, one edit at a time), you should take another look at the edits I made. The edits included copyedits and the removal of iffy sources. Not sure how you reached the absurd conclusion that they are vandalism. I have restored them. Leave them be. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your earlier comment, Muffin(Spreading democracy, one edit at a time). 204.16.123.149 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for reverting your edits to Richard Blumenthal. I was in the middle of re-reviewing your changes/my revert and was about to revert myself when your restored it to your version. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, S0091. I appreciate it. No worries. 204.16.123.149 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]