User talk:Ismeiri: Difference between revisions

Hi Ismeiri! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you truly for the warm welcome. I will be looking into these resources you shared. Ismeiri (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Gurkubondinn. An edit that you recently made to Egon Rannet seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, 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. Thanks. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I responded to you in the other section. Please do let me know what the best way to go forward is. Are all the edits I made to improve that page not good for inclusion, and if so what can I do to make sure they are? I appreciate your time. Ismeiri (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Have you been using an LLM for your edits here on Wikipedia recently? If so, could you WP:LLMDISCLOSE:

• What tool(s) you are using, and which versions.
• What prompts, features, etc that you are using.
• What review, if any, you are doing of the LLM generated output text.

Thank you, —Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I usually use Google search to look for sources, and sometimes the automatic AI option that appears to dive deeper when it is helpful, or ChatGPT in the same way. What I do is search for the subject of the Wikipedia article and then ask for reliable sources that are appropriate to expand pages that appear on my profile as needing expansion and improvement, the suggested edits. I always check the sources carefully to make sure they really match the content I add.

Because of this, I was surprised by the complete revert of all my edits, and also by your edit summary, where you mention the line about being affected by socialist realism. That line is not mine. It was already on the page, and it was kept in your revert. What I added was this sentence: “Rannet’s prose contributed to the development of Estonian social-realist literature during the mid-20th century.”

This is based on what the source says: “In the mid-1950s, plays that are characterized by a distinct Soviet attitude, socialist realism and conceptualism took center stage in his writings.”

Is this not an accurate reflection of the source? I agree with you that it is more precise than the wording currently used in the lede. Perhaps the lede should be adjusted to better match the formulation I proposed. I also agree with you about the “allowing their bibliographic details to be verified through national catalogues”, that should not be in there. Ismeiri (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment looks like it was written by a large language model, inasmuch as it appears to be completely devoid of substance. In that comment, you have implied, for example, that an article needs to explain why prostitution is “sexual” as if our readers do not know what the word “prostitution” means. I think that is the work of an LLM. James500 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not written by a large language model, it is not lacking substance, and I did not imply what you say I did. If you look at the article I was referring to you can see it mostly reproduces lists of offences for the different parts of the United Kingdom, with pages that already exist for each of them.

When I click on an article with the title Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, I expect to find a historical overview, statistics, data (there is only one sentence of this), cases that received widespread attention, and so on. But the article is mainly a brief listing of legal definitions. I’m sorry, I do not agree with you that the article is worth keeping as is. Ismeiri (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using an LLM to spam this project. It is obvious that your comments, even on this talk page, are AI generated. I can tell from reading them. Even your latest comment is obviously using an AI to summarise comments made by others in the AfD, instead of actually responding to what I have said to you. For example, “I expect to find a historical overview, statistics, data (there is only one sentence of this), cases that received widespread attention, and so on” is obviously an AI summarising Orange sticker’s !vote in the AfD, because that is what AI’s do. And your latest comment contains the usual AI generated mistakes such as claiming “pages … already exist for each of them”, when most of them don’t already have pages. Please simply stop spewing LLM generated material at other people. Thank you. James500 (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]