User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

What do "we" do about AI

I have just come across a self publicist using AI (0.9 probability) to generate their draft autobiograohy, rejected the draft and tagged it for CSD. I have to use a custom rationale, because I am not sure we cover it. See Draft:Thierry Rayer. Do you know if we have formulated a policy about this, both for the article/draft and the ~~dieters~~ editors! using it to generate such things? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is certainly pragmatic 👍 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: This is a difficult type of situation, because it sort of skirts around various policies without crashing straight into any of them. Depressingly often I find myself obliged to decline speedy deletion requests for pages which obviously should be deleted, because they just don't fit any of the criteria. The draft has been edited, making it less blatantly promotional than when it was first created, and it avoided any of the blatantly promotional language which one sees in many self-promotional articles, but I still think it had enough of an overall promotional character to justify speedy deletion. I don't think there's any policy about AI generated content, but there's certainly a guideline or essay or something discouraging it. Unfortunately I can't find it now; it isn't WP:AI. Personally I'm against having a policy about it, because the more policies we have the more confusing things get, especially for good faith new editors; the more things there are for editors to wikilawyer about the detailed wording of the policies; the more difficult it becomes to deal with things which without a specific policy would be obviously not OK but which clearly aren't covered by the policy because the editors who made the policy didn't anticipate them, and so on. (See my comment above beginning "Depressingly often I find...") I long for the days when the whole corpus of Wikipedia policies was on one page, which would fit on about two screens full. ...sigh... (That was before my time on Wikipedia, but even when I started out, the body of policies and guidelines was substantially smaller than it is now, and I really don't think we are any better off for the change.) JBW (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's ever expanding policies are evidence that we appear to love tying ourselves up in red tape! We even named a level in our hierarchy 'bureaucrats'! I predict we will become ever more rule and regulation bound until all we do is discuss rules and regulations... until a rule is made against doing that.

As a side note I have no idea how anyone can choose to put themselves through today's RFA! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there's any policy about AI generated content, but there's certainly a guideline or essay or something discouraging it. Unfortunately I can't find it now; it isn't WP:AI."

Do you mean WP:LLM? Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68 and Timtrent: Yes, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks. JBW (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: You could cite WP:DRAFTREASON#2: "The article consists of machine-generated text, such as ... the output of a large language model". WP:DRAFT isn't policy but there is some desire for it to become a guideline. This being a reason to draftify, it also functions as a reason to keep something as a draft until the problem is solved. —Alalch E. 15:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

124.169.141.129's block

Please unblock Special:Contributions/124.169.141.129 per my now-vanished comment. Izno (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I think you are mistaken, as putting triple brackets is not something one would be at all likely to do without a reason; nevertheless I will give the benefit of the doubt. However, you may like to consider whether, if you disagree with another administrator's decision, there might be a more friendly way of expressing your different opinion than "That was a bad block and you should reverse it". How about "I think you were mistaken, and I suggest you might revert it", for example? JBW (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool

Hi JBW. I requested the deletion of this page for the reasons I explained at WP:RFU. Would you mind fulfilling this request and then restore the record of deletion nomination? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst

User:Nwonwu Uchechukwu P is still blocked....-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Oops... silly me. That's what comes of allowing my self to get distracted into silly things such as remembering ancient user signatures, instead of keeping my mind on the job. Done now. JBW (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dainik Kalyan

Hi, JBW.

Following the creation of Draft:Dainik Kalyan by an IP user, it was submitted as an AfC submission by a globally locked sockpuppet. Since there's only a few minutes between the creation and submitting, I'm thinking they're probably the same person. Is the draft eligible to be deleted under G5 or should the IP be confirmed as a sock first? Since IPs aren't linked to named accounts, I'm not sure how to proceed with this. Please advise. Thanks. Frost 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost: There's no clear answer in this situation, and it's a matter of looking at the evidence and making a judgement. Here are my observations. It certainly looks suspicious. As you may know, there are some long-term persistent sockpuppeteers who regularly use the trick of first using IP editing to create a page, and then using a sockpuppet account to edit it, so that it does not get listed as created by that sockpuppet. However, looking through the past history, including deleted history, of the sockpuppets of this editor, I have not seen any occasions where they have done this (though please tell me if you know of cases that I have missed) and also the draft is not on the editor's usual topic. Neither of those proves anything, as the editor does also edit on other topics, but they cast enough doubt to make me think we have to give the benefit of the doubt, and leave it. Nevertheless, if any future editing of the draft gives further grounds for suspicion, I will reconsider it. I have watchlisted the page, but my watchlist has grown so long that I don't always follow up everything, so feel welcome to contact me again if you see anything there that seems worth considering. JBW (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Frost 15:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chief Warrant Officer of the Army

Good Afternoon, JBW.

Draft:Chief Warrant Officer of the Army, I created this page as an update and name change to the Army Staff Senior Warrant Officer. I work directly for the chief Warrant Officer of the Army and would like to know how to make sure the page is restored or how you recommend me going forward in creating a page that will not be deleted. I took out the link to the page that was said to be copyrighted. This was an article my boss did and was given a PDF to share. I uploaded it to the link provided. I understand this was not liked by Wiki and removed that article. Thank you. Goldengeoai 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you Sir! JBW - - SilverBullet X (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology to JBW

Dear JBW i really want to apologize for my behaviour here on wikipedia earlier this year. I promise to not add nonsense edits to wikipedia ever again. I hope you can accept this apology and that it follows what is allowed on a talk page furthermore i will remain mostly inactive. 90.214.152.236 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring broken links to pages

Good evening,

tou have reversed my editing where references are dead links and lead to nowhere.

please do not do this in future as you are reverting edits that are completely genuine and objectively correct. KeithHaynes63 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KeithHaynes63: (1) I apologise for my edit summary, which only mentioned notability, but in fact other considerations were perhaps more relevant. (2) One of the references which you removed was attached to the statement "Picture Frame Seduction split up, then reformed in 1999", and checking the reference confirmed that the cited source does indeed support that statement. In your edit summary when you removed that reference, you said that the cited source only had a passing mention of the subject of the article; that may be true, but since the mention was a reliable source for a statement in the article, and no other source for that statement is there, removing the reference was a mistake. You may be making the mistake of confusing the use of references to establish notability (where brief passing mentions are of no use) and the use of references for verifying article content, where the criterion is supporting that content, no matter how briefly. (3) Although removing dead references in articles on the face of it seems an obvious thing to do, in fact it is not always helpful. A dead reference may serve to indicate where there was a source for information in the past, even if it is no longer available, and sometimes it may help an editor to find another source, or in some cases the same source, if it has been moved to another URL, or if it is still where it was but there was a mistake in the reference. Very often marking a reference as dead is more helpful than removing it. JBW (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the clarification KeithHaynes63 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI issue at Gettysburg College

Hi, JB. Various IPs registered to the college have been removing a sourced statement regarding the swim team as being fake news. The statement, "In September, 2024 the school faced controversy as a black member of the men's swimming team had a racial slur forcibly carved into his chest by teammates," could use admin input regarding its inclusion; mind stopping by when you get a chance? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I've partially blocked the /24 range from editing the article for a month. It would probably be OK to do so for much longer, as there's no legitimate reason for anyone using those IP addresses to ever edit the article, in light of WP:COI, but I decided to settle for a month. I've also semi-protected the article for a couple of days, just in case of jumping to another IP address. Personally I'm not convinced that the material should be in the article, being about one incident, but that's obviously an editorial decision, not an admin issue, and I have no intention of getting involved. However, if it is to be in the article then I certainly agree with your taking it out of the lead. JBW (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]