User talk:Quepenamivida

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, I'm Tenshi Hinanawi. An edit that you recently made to User talk:REAL MOUSE IRL 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 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. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use an LLM. The comments were my own, carefully researched and carefully constructed, from comments I found on other pages dealing with similar circumstances. Did you not read them, and just collapse them haphazardly? Why? I don't get it. It's frustrating, and feels rude. Quepenamivida (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not collapse them, though the first comment was blatantly AI-generated, which was what the warning I gave you was for. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenshi Hinanawi: Can you explain why you think the comment in question is LLM generated? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Markdown, promotional descriptions, unnatural phrasing. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the text through https://gptzero.me/ which reported "We are highly confident this text is entirely human". Of the mere 5% that it thinks might be LLM generated, one trigger phrase is "significant public", which is clearly a false positive in this case.

"Unnatural phrasing" might be expected from anyone whose first language is not English. I don't know whether that applies to Quepenamivida, but since they seem to be in South Africa it may well do.

Can you see what effect having one's comments hidden and ignored on such an apparently false premise might have, on a good-faith contributor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero is not a reliable detector, most detectors aren't, hence why I generally refer to the LLM signs page that WikiProject AI Cleanup maintain. On collapsing, I generally disagree with such unless it is blatantly disruptive (which it wasn't in this case). Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: @Tenshi Hinanawi was, in fact, correct that my FIRST comment was put through AI. I did not know about the AI rule (I stopped contributing a long time ago and only recently returned), and I was upset for having my work haphazardly thrown out by some guy. So I used AI to make my response more positive. So the ideas were mine, but the language had been "cleaned up".

On the other hand, from then on in, my later comments were assumed to be AI generated (they were not, me and the English language are old allies and friends) - and the collapsing was used to end a meaningful discussion and discard my points before they were read. Ergo, the disruption led to a failure to reach consensus, and were used instead as leverage to ignore my input. Alas.

So yes, to being AI (sort of). And yes, to being disruptive to what I understand to be good Wikipedia policy.

BUT! @Tenshi Hinanawi also (on his own talk page) helped me take further steps, so I am greatly appreciative of his help, nonetheless, despite now going through exaggerated hoops and unnecessary slings of bureaucracy. Ultimately, a failure of "the spirit of improving the encyclopedia tak(ing) priority over procedural or technical loopholes". (And I did learn one heck of a lesson to make sure I don't sound like AI in future). Quepenamivida (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]