User talk:MSK

Question from Asser Nader on User:Asser Nader (14:52, 19 September 2026)

How to put a pic --Asser Nader (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Just click the + icon thingy, then select images, then search up and select what image you want to put in your article. Neat, isn't it? ChickenTeriyakiEater1773 (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Closure of RM 2026 Iran war

I think RM could benefit from more time, since it concerns a major conflict that is currently ongoing and discussions are still active. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 00:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think consensus was quite clear in this case, and a relist is not needed. msk 00:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

While our !votes were conflicting, I concur with @SideEffect. I was involved in the previous disaster when we prematurely changed the infobox to say "Iranian victory"; I know from experience that rushing the bureaucracy in this conflict is not a good idea. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see how more time would've benefited the discussion, nor any side effects of a "premature" close. This war has been going on for well over half a year now, and "Iran War" is the consistent name used for it; additionally, this move was an NCWWW/NOYEAR debate, not a debate on what the COMMONNAME is*. (Interpet this in a way where it doesn't contradict itself.)

P.S. which discussion was the "Iranian victory" thing? I'm curious. msk 00:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

this piece of crap that generated international headlines In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

In response to you both, whilst I do not mind leaving the discussion open for a few more days, as I just stated at Talk:2026 Iran war#Requested move 13 September 2026, there is a clear consensus after one full week of discussion. Again, I am open to reopening the discussion for a few more days if people believe it would be beneficial. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I doubt it would change the result, but I think caution is warranted considering the circumstances. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

After reconsidering myself, as the nominator of the requested move I too concur with @SideEffect in that this discussion should last a few days longer given the sensitive nature of the topic being discussed. Whilst I do personally believe that consensus won’t drastically change, I do not see the harm in leaving it open. @Grilledcheeseisgreat also makes a good point in reference to the last time we prematurely rushed to close a discussion. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not leaning torwards reopening, since removing a year from a title is nowhere near being as controversial as the aforementioned "Iranian victory" thing. msk 01:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

That's true, but I still want to err on the side of caution. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 01:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Of course I am fine with this too, just giving my two cents here. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The war will probably go onto next year and I think it's justified calling the article the Iran War. Also most media sources, like Reuters for example, call this war as the Iran War. I know there are other wars involving Iran such as the Twelve-Day War last year and the Iran–Iraq War, but in this case, I think Iran War is the correct name. IranScribe0 (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

This is about whether or not it was correct to close the discussion at the time we did - not an extension of the discussion. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 01:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I also believe it was too soon to close this, discussion was ongoing, with new points coming up, and it was drawing new participants. I came to rebut a response to a comment of mine only to find that I cannot. Regarding the consensus, a number of the support !votes lack rationale other than "per X" -- arguments without arguments. The closing rationale discounts the arguments that the proposed title is ambigious, while the question of capitalization is completely unsettled. —BrechtBro (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

actually, "per X User" is actually perfectly fine and carries weight in Wikipedia discussions. But the rest of your comment still stands. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 02:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Like @Grilledcheeseisgreat said, “per (user)” is an acceptable argument in discussions, but other than that I also agree with you on this. In my opinion the discussion should be reopened for at least another week, and upon its next closure I believe that, regardless of consensus, all major points from both sides should be addressed properly. I do believe that it would be in the best interests of both sides of this discussion to reopen the discussion. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I've reopened the close -- the Being closed template was there for... quite a while so I assumed no one had any ongoing discussions. msk 03:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I get that, don’t worry. It’s just that with topics and discussions around topics as sensitive as this one, we want to be absolutely sure before making any final decisions. Odds are that international media will pick up on this potential name change the same way the “Iranian victory” fiasco made headlines, so it’s good to make sure that we’re absolutely certain on making that decision, even if it’s already likely the outcome will remain the same as it is now. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you no longer try to close the RM. We should get a new closer, just to avoid any bias in judgment. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 04:52, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

SAR (clade)

Hi MSK

I'm just wondering why you relisted the article above and then closed it only two days into the relisting period? There had not been very significant participation in this RM, and it seems to overturn a consensus from previous RMs last year which had greater participation.

Personally I don't support this move and would oppose it, per the arguments made just a year ago. The new name is not WP:NATURAL, and dropping the supergroup label seems to go against WP:COMMONNAME, which clearly treats SAR as a supergroup and used the name "SAR supergroup", from sources such as , , etc. Please can you move the page back and reopen the RM? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I closed per this comment; if you object to the move, open a new requested move. msk 22:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You closed it prematurely, just two days into the relisting period. Please reopen and let it run its full course. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no rule saying relisted RMs have to run for another 7 days, and thus it is not possible to prematurely close a relisted move. msk 22:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but you presumably relisted it because you thought further participation would be useful, and nothing appears to have changed in the following two days except that the nominator asked you to close it. Given the limited participation and the contrary consensus in the previous RMs, I don't think closing it at the nominator's request so soon after relisting was a good idea. I'm asking you to reconsider the close and allow the discussion to continue, particularly as there are substantive WP:COMMONNAME arguments which weren't addressed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Even before the nominator's request, it was pretty clear the discussion was in favor of moving; I was just flip-flopping between waiting for another week for additional participation (unlikely, given that the last comment before the relist was 6 days ago) or just closing. Jako96 convinced me to do the latter. If you oppose this move, open a new RM. msk 23:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be a pain, but I'm struggling to understand the reluctance to reopen this. Relisting is cheap, and there are substantive policy-based arguments still to be made here. In particular, I want to reiterate the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL arguments which led to the opposite outcome in the better-attended RMs last year, and which don't appear to have been addressed here. Opening another RM immediately after this one has closed doesn't seem an appropriate solution either; we normally avoid repeatedly reopening the same title question in quick succession. Given that you had already decided further participation would be useful, surely the simplest course is just to allow that relisting to continue? The alternative would be for me to open a move review, but that seems a huge waste of time when you can simply relist again, which is a very normal process when there are further points to discuss. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

It is closed, and I see no reason to go out-of-process to undo the close, and have to deal with breaking RMCD bot and undoing other cleanup work surrounding this RM, on the basis of a oppose on my talk page. msk 23:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be an argument going around here! ChickenTeriyakiEater1773 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

RAL

Hi there. Just noting that I've nominated you for the redirect autopatrol list after seeing your work at Bird molting. Keep up the good work! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Digital Capital draft rejected

Thank you for reviewing the draft and for the feedback.

Could you please clarify what you mean by the concern regarding LLM-generated content? I would appreciate it if you could point me to the specific part(s) of the draft that raised this issue and explain what changes or additional evidence would be needed to address the concern.

I’m happy to revise the draft accordingly and ensure that the content is based on reliable, independently verifiable sources and complies with Wikipedia’s relevant policies and guidelines.

Thank you for your guidance. Digitalstudies (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I am a human. I have spent my time identifying LLM use and declining your draft. If you have so little respect for me that I don't even deserve a human-written (!) message, just more AI slop that you didn't even proofread, then I will not interact with you. msk 14:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm human too. Not sure what you mean. I genuinely do not understand where you believe I used an LLM. Me too, I spent time in reviewing, rewriting and posting the article. I really don't get it. Thanks anyway for your hard work, but this LLM things I guess is getting out of control and quite frustrating, as we are forced to make some mistakes in our writing to appear more "human". It looks that academic or polished writing is being treated as evidence of AI use. I honestly don't think that is a good direction. I wish you all the best. Digitalstudies (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Question from ChickenTeriyakiEater1773 (06:02, 27 September 2026)

Hello! Just checking if you're still editing Wikipedia. --ChickenTeriyakiEater1773 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Am I? msk 15:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

FAC

Your nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Micronesian myzomela/archive1 is incomplete because it is not transcluded to WP:FAC per point 5 of the nomination procedure. DrKay (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, transcluded. msk 16:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Question from OrcytherealOrca (21:33, 28 September 2026)

How do I create pages and make italics or bold letters? --OrcytherealOrca (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

'''bold text''' → bold text, ''italic text'' → italic text msk 22:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

thanks! OrcytherealOrca (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Candidates/The Mysterious Vishen

Hi MSK. Regarding the G6 that was removed, just to let you know that the monitors are keeping an eye on this nom page. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Ronald Howard (British actor)

Hi, I was going to close this RM as moved, but I saw that you closed this as no consensus. Could you explain your rationale here? Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Rereading again I can see how you would read this as moved, which seems a bit more reasonable; as such I've changed the closure. msk 19:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it should have stayed as no consensus but I do agree that there should be a closing statement, surely the points that were made about the actual name of both people being the same and the fact that the other has significantly more views as would suggest that there wasn't a consensus that the tougher standard for partial disambiguation wasn't met so could you please change back to "no consensus" but provide a closing statement, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I will not change back to "no consensus", and I think this close is quite self-evident if you read through the comments with the closing instructions in mind. msk 21:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Not everyone can be expected to know the RMCI off by heart though. Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point. I've edited my close, again. msk 21:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Jared Sprouse (filmmaker)

FYI: Re-draftifying an article after another editor has asserted it belongs in mainspace isn't permitted (WP:DRAFTNO #6). If you disagree with an AfC approval or other move from draftspace, the proper avenue is PROD or AfD, not re-draftification. RachelTensions (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Question re. Ensemble (fashion retailer) draft

Hi MSK,

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft for Ensemble (fashion retailer). I wanted to quickly clarify the reason for the decline and explain my process (this is my first article in AfC so I understand that I might be getting some processes wrong.

I wrote the articles prose myself and after the very first draft decline for LLM use I sat down with a blank word document and rewrote the article from scratch with no LLM use at all. The draft went through 2 more declines before yours - the first for NPOV and the second for notability. I took the feedback and edited the draft in line with reviewer feedback which i sought from my reviewers on their talk pages and the AFC helpdesk.

I did not use ChatGPT to draft any of the content of the article. In the interest of full transparency, I used chatGPT in three ways: 1. Converting my word doc writeup which i did with footnote citations into Wikitext (ie. wikipedia formatting for citations etc.) which I assumed is fine as it is related to procedure and not content / wording. I did check to make sure it didn't change any words manually. 2. Understanding Wikipedia policy and procedures at the outset. eg. When I asked for additiontnal places I could ask for feedback, chatGPT suggested the AfC helpdesk. At the outset when I told it I wanted to write this page and asked how, it gave me instructions on how to do it through AfC and how to declare COI etc. 3. Following the NPOV feedback in my second decline and given my declared COI, I asked ChatGPT to flag passages / sentences that could sound promotional (it effectively flagged what I had identified myself). I rewrote these myself. (this was between the second draft declined for NPOV and the third declined for notability).

I wanted to clarify is the issue was using an LLM to convert to wikicode (I am happy to learn the semantics and do that manually myself), or whether there was some concern with a part of the articles prose (I am happy to rewrite those sections to satisfy any concerns).

Thank you very much.

PS. I don't know if word has meta-data etc. but i can share numerous versioned drafts of word documents, edit history screenshots if that would be helpful. SVP95 (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

When you used ChatGPT to convert your document to wikitext, it hallucinated sources, e.g "Ensemble, Tina Tahiliani Indian fashion show". Mint Lounge. Retrieved 1 September 2026. says the title is "Ensemble, Tina Tahiliani Indian fashion show" but the actual title is "Is Indian fashion entering its post-virality era?". I don't think this can be explained as just a formatting error. msk 14:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it was completely my mistake. I checked that it hadn't made any changes to the article text, but had rather lazily trusted ChatGPT to format the citations with the correct information which I thought was mechanical without double-checking. Lesson learned!

I will go through and verify / update the URL sources within the wikicode block manually to ensure the citations are accurate before resubmiting.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. SVP95 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from James A Tooley (15:26, 1 October 2026)

Hello, I'd like to contribute a new page about my uncle who was on the Bataan Death March in 1942-44 and ultimately died about a "Hell Ship" in Subic Bay, near Manila. I'm new at this. Can you point me to the specific steps and software requirements so what I do will be acceptable to Wikipedia? --James A Tooley (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing a new article is incredibly difficult, especially if you have a COI, like in this case. This means you have to publish your article through AfC, where it will be evaluated against the notability guidelines. Before you start writing, could you find the 3 best sources--that is, 3 sources that provide in-depth coverage of your uncle, are independent, and are reliable (so no blogs)--and share them here? Thanks. msk 17:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure ....

Here is an article from St. Thomas Academy in St. Paul, MN recognizing my uncle as one of it's WWII Alumni ... see pages 2-5 where William James Tooley is shown and reported on. https://issuu.com/stacadets/docs/saint_thomas_academy_saber_-_spring_2020_issue

This link will take you to a PDF, I put together about my uncle's story. It contains information I received from Dean Simmons, economics instructor and Archivist at St. Thomas Academy over the last month via email. In the PDF, I show the last letter my uncle sent to his father in Chicago, written on Feb. 11, 1942, before he was captured as a POW by the Japanese on the Bataan Peninsula, P.I. It also includes a picture of the Telegram the War Dept. sent to his father on December 6, 1942, telling him that his son was classified as a POW.

William J Tooley - A Soldier's Story

I've made this link available to family members but thought it should be available to a broader audience. James A Tooley (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The sources you presented are all primary sources and thus don't demonstrate eligibility for an article, however there might be sources. There was an United Press International that was circulated quite widely around December 1946 (e.g. https://www.newspapers.com/article/press-telegram-girl-shares-estate-of-man/208132089/), but without knowing more of his family history (the pdf you linked 404s) I can't really research further. msk 18:28, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from Sujit kumar 1999 on User:Sujit kumar 1999 (18:23, 1 October 2026)

Ek Apne aap Ko bhi Aakar apna bank 🏦 hi --Sujit kumar 1999 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from RAJAY DENNISS (19:37, 1 October 2026)

how do i make a good story --RAJAY DENNISS (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Upsun

Hi MSK. I saw that you declined Draft:Upsun because the submission “appears to be a large language model output”. The draft was not generated by an LLM. Could you let me know what specifically in the draft led you to that conclusion? I’d like to understand the issue before making any further changes. Thanks, Toometa (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you let me know what specifically in the draft led you to that conclusion? I can't, sorry. Flagship LLMs now lack many of the "it's obvious" tells that we had 1-2 years ago, and much more of a general "AI vibe" that is really only apparent if one has read a lot of AI writing on Wikipedia. One note though, LLMs (Claude specifically) tend to leave "comments to reviewers" using {{AfC comment}} like the one you left, which contributed to the general "AI vibe" of the draft. Additionally, some general prose suggestions:

• The second paragraph of History should probably be moved to the Platform section
• Platform.sh operated with employees distributed across different countries. incorrect tense
• distributed across multiple time zones isn't this already implied with 120 employees in 21 countries? Regardless, "international" is probably a better descriptor.

msk 21:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful.

Regarding the AfC comment, I added it because the previous decline had led to a discussion with the reviewer and then to a substantial rewrite of the draft. I thought it would be useful for the next reviewer to know that the previous feedback had been addressed and to have a direct link to that discussion. I wasn't aware that this was something Claude tends to do. I find that a little concerning as an AI tell, though, because leaving this kind of context for the next reviewer seems like good practice to me, and it would be unfortunate if editors became reluctant to do so because it might look AI-generated.

Regarding the prose suggestions, I kept the second paragraph in History because it describes how the company's distributed working model developed over time, rather than the platform itself. But I agree that either placement is defensible.

I used "operated" because I was describing Platform.sh during the period covered by the sources, rather than making a claim about how Upsun operates today. But I see how it could imply that this is no longer the case, so I'll change that.

And yes, I agree that the reference to multiple time zones is redundant after mentioning 120 employees in 21 countries.

Would you be comfortable with me making those changes and resubmitting the draft? Toometa (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

because leaving this kind of context for the next reviewer seems like good practice to me It used to be, but it was also incredibly uncommon--what kind of new user discovers the {{AfC comment}} template and learns how to use it on their own? Though, as long as the prose reads well, it shouldn't matter all that much to reviewers.

Also, go ahead with the changes. By principle almost no AfC reviewer will review drafts upon request; as such I will not review this draft again. I have, however, left a comment for reviewers noting this conversation. msk 14:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Toometa (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from Prem jyoti baba on Statesboro Blues (22:47, 2 October 2026)

How do I create an update to existing text? --Prem jyoti baba (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Dickey Betts

In the article about Statesboro Blues, the section on Allman Brothers, it states Dickey Betts still plays slide on this number, live. This is unlikely as he passed away in 2024, so maybe he’s still sliding away but stretches the definition of “live” Prem jyoti baba (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There should be an "edit" button next to the "The Allman Brothers Band version" header, click it. It should open the editor. msk 23:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks I’ll try that Prem jyoti baba (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from Harry67677 (03:07, 3 October 2026)

Pls I want to see a pornographer wat should I do --Harry67677 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, however I have the nagging suspicion searching Google might surface useful results. Perhaps give that a try? msk 03:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from JasonGraceREVAMP (03:09, 3 October 2026)

Note: JasonGraceREVAMP's mentor ARandomName123 is away.

Are there specific terms or words to use under an actors filmography chart if the character they play in a film has no specified name? Some films are unreleased and i am unable to find information about the role regarding the name. Thank you for your help! --JasonGraceREVAMP (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

is that actor credited as anything in the credits? If so, use that name. If they were just an extra, then "extra" would probably also work. There aren't any rules about this, just use your best judgement. msk 03:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from Prem jyoti baba on Statesboro Blues (10:19, 3 October 2026)

Hello, I’ve tried that but still no clue how to make an entry Sorry I’m not used to this! --Prem jyoti baba (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from .nexvii (15:16, 4 October 2026)

Does using the word "he" twice in a row count as a error in tone, instead should I use the refered to person? --.nexvii (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide the full sentence where you are using "he he"? In most cases it would be a grammatical error but it is rarely grammatical. msk 15:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from CrackerNinja (19:44, 6 October 2026)

Hello MSK! How do I go back to my article to make edits? --CrackerNinja (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

About the LLM concern

Hi MSK, I just wanted to clarify that I’ve already been officially warned about using LLM-generated text before, so I’ve been very careful about that. The writing in these drafts are my own. Most of my sources are in Spanish, so I translated the information into English and then wrote it in my own words.

I've now had two drafts declined for the same reason by you. I want to state and clarify very clearly that there is no AI use of any kind and I have never accepted AI use in the past.

Have a lovely day.

~~~~

Oswald Quinsley (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Request on 06:48:09, 7 October 2026 for assistance on AfC submission by ~2026-53898-94

• ~2026-53898-94 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:DJ Jahmar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

~2026-53898-94 (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Message

Hello @MSK, Thank you for the moved the page for The Paradise (film). Sincerely, AgentPanda🐼^(Tlk)|(Ctrb) 14:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about 3JCN Physics Simulation Draft

Dear MSK, Thank you for reviewing my draft. I already declared that I used ChatGPT to help suggest the main topics and organize the draft. I also submitted the ChatGPT shared link to show how I used it. Please also check the references in the draft. The links are working, and they include many independent, reliable, published sources that discuss 3JCN Physics Simulation and its use in physics education. English is my second language, so I sometimes use AI to help me with wording and organization. I hope the draft can be judged mainly by the Wikipedia requirements, such as reliable sources, independent coverage, notability, neutrality, and verifiability, instead of only whether AI was used to help with writing. 3JCN Physics Simulation has been used by students and teachers in many countries and has contributed to physics education. I believe the independent published sources showing this should be an important part of the review. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Best regards, Thomas Nguyen ThomasNguyenTuan (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

He also refused 2 of my drafts because I translated Spanish sources into English. I think that he did for that reason because he gave me no other answer just a generic " LLM" usage for the decline reason.

~~~~ Oswald Quinsley (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from Sujata bhatti (06:58, 9 October 2026)

Hi,sir ...I am sujata bhatti I don't know english very much so you can help me...?? --Sujata bhatti (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

If you don't feel comfortable writing in English, you may want to try editing another language Wikipedia- see List of Wikipedias to find the language(s) you speak and write well in. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:42, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of my expansion on The South Pacific Cartel

Hi MSK,

I noticed that you removed all of my expansion to the South Pacific Cartel article on 6 October, citing WP:LLMPRV.

I'm honestly quite frustrated by this because I spent a considerable amount of time researching and expanding this specific article and that includes its history, conflict with Édgar Valdez Villarreal, and the arrests and decline of its leadership. I also included references to support the information I added naturally so.

Could you explain what specifically was wrong with my contributions? Was there an issue with the sources or the accuracy of the information because I am pretty sure that is not the case. You cannot simply remove my entire work with a lazy AI label and move on without an explanation. It is truly unprofessional and dismissive behaviour.

I've restored the adding and I'd appreciate an explanation rather than having my ENTIRE work remove just with a lazy excuse of a falsified labelling.

Thanks and have a great day with your birds,

Oswald Quinsley.

~~~~ Oswald Quinsley (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Luciano Corvaglia - revised version

Dear MSK,

Thank you for reviewing my draft, Draft:Luciano Corvaglia. I wrote the original Italian Wikipedia article after researching and personally checking the published sources. For the English version, I used ChatGPT to assist with the translation. I personally reviewed, edited, and checked the entire English text against the original article and the cited sources. Following your comments, I have substantially revised and shortened the draft and added the required translation attribution to its talk page. Please let me know if any further changes are needed before I resubmit it. Thank you for your help. Pepito65 Pepito65 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from Hardnormaldaddy (06:34, 11 October 2026)

Hi, so sorry to bother you but I was wondering how to judge whether a species warrants its own Wikipedia article.

For example, I was looking into Grimmia plagiopodia (moss), mentioned in one of the many red links in the Grimmia article and researched a reasonable amount of info about it externally.

However I'm unsure whether creating a standalone article would be worthwhile when dedicated info is already available + accessible to read online on ie. established plant conservation networks.

I've read relevant guidelines but I'm struggling to apply them in practice. Any general help or direction would be rlly appreciated !! Thank you so much :^) --Hardnormaldaddy (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Eukaryotic species are automatically notable (justify a page) because of WP:NSPECIES. I'm unsure whether creating a standalone article would be worthwhile when dedicated info is already available + accessible to read online on ie. established plant conservation networks. Most readers don't know where to find these resources though (e.g. me) so having a page on Wikipedia, even if it is just a stub with a link to the resource in the external links section, is still beneficial. msk 15:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay I understand now, thank you for the help :) Hardnormaldaddy (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for Deleted Article Text and Guidance on Istituto Marangoni Miami

Hello,

I am reviewing the deletion of “Istituto Marangoni Miami” and would like to understand how best to proceed in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies.

I understand the concerns raised about promotional language and AI-generated content. I would also like to review the deleted version to identify the specific issues and determine whether the topic is supported by sufficient independent, reliable sources for a standalone article.

Would it be possible to provide the deleted text in my userspace or as a draft for review?

I have a professional connection to the subject and will disclose this appropriately. I will not repost the previous version or attempt to circumvent the deletion decision.

Thank you for your guidance. Hanni Montana (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I will not respond to machine-generated messages. msk 16:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Question from ZeroEntry (12:20, 18 October 2026)

Note: ZeroEntry's mentor ClaudineChionh is away.

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

Warning new editors

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)

Question from Jimjons (08:52, 20 October 2026)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Regarding Draft:Jamon Jordan for LLM generated text

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)

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)

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

Question from Jimjons (05:49, 22 October 2026)

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)

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)

Regarding a page you reviewed

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)