Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Hey Flyingphoenixchips, excellent work on Wikipedia! @Kelob2678 pointed out that you may use AI in your work. To which you replied, "I used a script to organize bare references, yes. [I] did not use [it] for writing." It seems that text from your article was likely AI-generated, and others appear to have AI generation with human review. Since you are a native speaker of English from your WP:Babel user template. I wanted to let you know that I left you some AI-generated tags. If you think this is wrong, let me know. CostalCal (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @CostalCal, thanks for pointing this out. So what I had been doing is creating self written articles on local drive with annotations with specific references, and use a python script to organise it all and push edits onto my wikipedia account. The script does use two agents to format the paper and organise the references. Was not quite sure, if this would fall under No LLM guidelines of wikipedia. will have a look at the tags you made, and improve it accordingly. Thanks again, much appreciated Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Got it, thanks. It was just a bit annoying to keep formatting the references and things in wikitext over and over, so I was tempted to automate it. I'll try doing things myself from now on and will try to get it approved. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
That fails to explain the bucketloads of AISIGNS in your edits. Either your agents are doing something far beyond what you have told them to do or there is some information we are not privy to here. Fermiboson (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
The script instructs the agents to convert a markdown I had written to wikitext and pushed edits in bulk. The thing is I structured the markdown with references marked as "$", and the agents handled formatting and pushing those. I did test and verify that the references were correct after each run, but I am not sure why AI signs are showing up. I hadn't looked at the specific contents until @CostalCal pointed out. Yes, it does seem to me that the conversion was altering sentence structure beyond what I caught. I apologize for that. I will clean up the affected articles manually and stop using this method going forward. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wish I did. I couldn't get past the first section since it was too huge a conflict for a traditional write-up. Some summay perspectives were needed, which I think you added. I quite appreciate that! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Flyingphoenixchips. Thank you for reviewing my draft. Dipanjan Roy meets criteria 3 of WP:PROF. He is a fellow of National Academy of Sciences, India. I have used the primary sources only for biographical facts, just his career appointments and educational background, consistent with WP:PRIMARY. If you feel that the article relies a lot on primary sources I can take some information out. Can you please take a look again when you have time? HRShami (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes I understood that, but the issue I had was with primary sources. What you did in the article was basically original synthesis of his research work. He is notable no doubt of it, but either you should find better sources for bulk of the content or remove them @HRShami. See Wikipedia:No original researchFlyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The faculty pages are fine, I am just a bit hesitant with using his peer reviewed publications directly. There should be faculty websites/webpages of his lab that list his research work I suppose, or even press releases from the university? @HRShami Feel free to submit it again, after making these changes Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Understood. The first line of the research felt like WP:OR. I have changed the reference to his website where the same information can be confirmed without any synthesis. Is it okay to resubmit it now? HRShami (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey @HRShami it looks good now. You can resubmit it, and I should be able to approve it. Also just fyi, it would be better to not cite his individual research papers under career. Maybe use a faculty page to talk about his field of work? Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The papers I have cited are not written by him. They are papers that have cited his work. I have resubmitted the article. Thanks for your help with this. HRShami (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Flyingphoenixchips,
Thank you for your review of my submission on author Gary McAvoy. Per your response, I’ve removed the citations for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I've kept the citation for the Guardian since that article specifically cites Mr. McAvoy as the author of the book. I’ve also added an additional reference for a prominent Publishers Weekly review of his work.
I hope these changes are sufficient for acceptance.
First, I hope this is the correct place to respond. I couldn't find where to reply directly to your most recent comment. I just uploaded changes for my submission on author Gary McAvoy. I assure you that I did not use an LLM to write the original draft and I am quite opposed to using LLMs. I'm also not quite sure how it would be possible in this case, given the content. If you're referring to my use of em dashes, I've been using them for decades. It's a shame that such a valuable grammatical tool has automatically become associated with LLM usage. In any event, I've deleted them and made a few other small edits. I've also removed the bibliography per your request.
I hope these changes meet your requests and are sufficient for acceptance of the article.
Hey @Rsamborn, I suspected LLM generation because of the red link categories tags, and the structure in which the wikitext is written, which is characteristic of LLM generation. I use em dash often myself, and won't say that would be the sole reason for suspecting LLM usage. Feel free to resubmit, the subject is notable. Assuming good faith, that LLM wasn't used I shall accept the same. Apologies, if my apprehensions were wrong Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Flyingphoenixchips, thanks for the quick reply. I assure you that I did not use an LLM at all and truthfully didn't even know it was possible to do so for a Wikipedia page (not that I would anyway). For the structure and red link categories, I merely copied the structure and format from other pages on Wikipedia. Thanks so much. Please let me know if you require any other edits. Rsamborn (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Flyingphoenixchips, another reviewer declined my submission, also citing "obvious signs of LLM usage." I don't know how else I can stress that I did not use an LLM to generate this article. It doesn't even seem possible to me. I did notice some broken links, and I removed those. I don't know what else to do. The article is very short and there's nothing in it that looks AI-generated, let alone obvious (because it wasn't AI generated). I'm hoping you can help or offer some guidance on what I can do. Thank you very much. Rsamborn (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Rsamborn, a few quick suggestions. Try rewriting the lead in a more casual tone since phrases like "distributes internationally with translations available in French, German, and Spanish" read like a press release. Maybe this is why other editors feel that it is AI generated. Also the "Military service" section repeats what is already in "Early life" so consider merging them. Most importantly, adding a Kirkus or Publishers Weekly editorial review of the fiction would go a long way toward establishing notability. Please Go ahead and resubmit when ready. If it gets declined again, consider posting at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Help desk where experienced editors can give you direct guidance or re-review the article (noting your statement about LLM use), or try Wikipedia:Teahouse which is specifically for newer editors who need support. Good luck! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There are no policies on Wikipedia where there is an automatic ban on the use of YouTube sources. According to WP, self-published sources may be used for making uncontroversial factual claims about the source itself, several of the cited videos are from the news organizations or directly from the KDA press conferences and are being used only for the purpose of verifying facts rather than making any analysis or controversial claims WP. WP also mentions that reliability of information is based on the uploader and context; therefore, the videos uploaded by organizations such as ThePrint, News18 Urdu, or any other reliable local media house cannot be considered unreliable simply because they are uploaded on YouTube. Independent secondary sources such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, Daily Excelsior, etc., have also been used for validating general claims in the articleSarim Wani (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Indian TV media are notorious for spreading misinformation, and that is why I tagged it as such. However thanks for working on it, I have accepted the same. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
No problem I as a kashmiri am well aware of this problem, however usually kashmiri/ladkahi media doesn't do the same as there isn't much population to misguide. Sarim Wani (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry if I missed an important detail but I don't see how my submission read like an essay or opinion peace. I sourced everything as best I could via official documents uploaded by the boxing federation of India as well as various big news sources with direct interviews with the subject in question. Could you help me maybe expand upon what exactly you thought was opinionated about the article? Boxstodian2 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I had left a comment on the article as well, but I am elaborating on the same herein. Most of the article reads as a promotional piece backed only with non independent sources. Particularly phrases like "humble working class family," "this initially left the family discouraged, but still determined," and "winning over 1,000s of other young men" are storytelling, not WP:NPOV reporting. It builds a redemption arc (father's sacrifice, malnutrition, growth spurt, avenging a past loss) instead of stating facts plainly as an encyclopaedia must. There is also unsourced color (mimicking mitts with bare hands, coaches' remarks about his height) and WP:PEACOCK language ("immense success," "massive upset," "dominating"). Much of it is fight-by-fight blow-by-blow that belongs in match reports, not a biography, which trips WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROSE. Feel free to add some more references and fix the language. I will let another reviewer take a look if you were to resubmit Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Flyingphoenixchips, I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing my Ron Bailey draft. I now (!) understand that you were the one who did the actual review work before it was accepted. Really appreciate it! Campaigner1942 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Damn....that was a heck of a nomination spree ma man! Once again....thanks to your tireless efforts in chaffing the non-notable ones from the notable institutes. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it)03:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I noticed on editing Hindu American Foundation you included a ref-cite citation for a source four times; notably, that citation was already in the article, so what this meant was that under references the same article was cited five times. Don't worry about it, I fixed it - but in the future this is how you avoid it:
<ref name="FizzBuzz">{cite ..........}</ref>
Then after doing this once, you can cite the same thing elsewhere by just saying
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Lee Hee-wan when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! Sanamahism isn't an officially recognized religion by the Government of India, unlike other minority groups like Sikhs, Jains, or Muslims. So, it doesn't have coverage in Indian census. Same thing for all the small ethnic religions (including Tingkao Ragawang Chapriak, sorry if I misspelled it) of the Naga & Kuki communities of Manipur. So, the information about the religious practices they have are to rely on sources, other than census. And religion is a fluid identity, not rigid. Some section of an ethnicity practice it while some don't. There's no one size fits all rule that each ethnicity should be entirely Christian or Hindu. And about the sources (reputable local media houses from different states of India, because local news are seldom covered in national or international media houses) I have added, those explicitly mention about the people following Sanamahi religion or religious traditions, celebrating the festival together, for the first time. Only 4 selected ethnicities are specifically mentioned repeatedly in different news coverage about sections of their ethnicity (not all the ethnicity population) following the religion, worshipping the deities, and celebrating the festivals. I am not labelling them as totally Sanamahist or totally Christian. And those are not meant for "promotional", but "educational" purposes in my intention. We can reword it if it sounds otherwise to others (I won't be rigid tbh because I am aware that I might be wrong too) but I think it's ok not to completely remove the information because it's unique (mentioning facts about communal harmony and "for the first time" incidents) and notable (having coverage in different sources). I hope you understand that. And thank you for adding additional information on those "stub articles" (stubbed for a long time) as they need adequate contents. Haoreima (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Haoreima I will suggest mentioning this information in the body instead of the infobox, as possible links to Sanamahism or broadly the Meitei people. I have added some information about such a link. A brief mention in the body, worded carefully, would be fine. Something like: "In 2026, sections of the Meetei, Chothe, Kabui, and Maring communities jointly observed Sajibu Nongma Panba Cheiraoba for the first time, reflecting a shared Sanamahism tradition." This could perhaps go in the society & culture section.
That said, local news coverage on its own doesn't carry much weight, per WP:NEWSORG and WP:DUE. Several local outlets reporting on the same press conference can amount to one news cycle rather than independent corroboration (WP:RSBREAKING), and identity-related claims about ethnic groups tend to need stronger sourcing under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. So we tend to prefer official census figures before making any such claims. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Understood. In that case, as you are expanding those specific articles, shall I leave that section to you to add it during your writings? Haoreima (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Curious as to why you changed them back to non-diacritics renditions? There is no consensus on diacritics in article names even when compared with common names, several articles use diacritics for languages such as Vietnamese for example. I think the proper rendition should be maintained as it was still recognisable and accessible with redirects and maintained the integrity of the language. I don't believe any more "substantial utility" was obtained making the titles non diacritics while every mention in the article retains it, which is inconsistent. I would suggest changing it back but would like to hear your perspective. Taitesena (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Taitesena Thanks for reaching out. I would actually rather say, we should drop them from the body as well. I did this as per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME since most English-language reliable sources consistently drop them for these specific festival names. English sources don't habitually use diacritics and thereby I would say this would apply to the rest of the body too, per MOS:CONSISTENT. Also, you should probably only add the native-script form with the diacritics once in the lead parenthetically per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, and then whichever form the English language sources use should be followed throughout. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My point is there is no substantive different between the same spelling with diacritics and those without. The rules apply in so far for places like Florence an English name as opposed to Firenze, regards a substantively different word compared to English usage. I believe Mizo Wikipedia should preserve the correct diacritics and structure because maintaining the accents is not changing the word to a foreign one, nor does removing it make it an English one. Furthermore, a Mizo academic paper jn either English or Mizo normally formally maintain the diacritics (how I corrected the names of chiefs and locations in my pages). According to your logic Suakpuilala should be Sukpilal which is the anglicised version. I heavily suggest the policy should maintain diacritics as it is not an obstacle and removing it does not n crease any utility. Furthermore it preserve the academic and proper naming conventions used in academia. Read the historical journal of Mizoram to see their usage of diacritics being consistent. Taitesena (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Taitesena I get what you mean, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Mizo Wikipedia. Our readers are primarily English speakers who may not know how to interpret or pronounce diacritical marks. WP:UE exists precisely because Wikipedia should be accessible to general English readers, not just specialists. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we as editors are required to follow how English-language reliable sources actually render terms, not how Mizo-language academic papers do. What Mizo journals do internally is not the relevant test for English Wikipedia. Regarding Suakpuilala, dropping diacritics is not the same as respelling with different letters. Also it does not matter what other articles such as in the case of Vietnamese does. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a relevant argument. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You have to remove the diacritics on a justified grounds, because nobody is reading a word with diacritics and without diacritics and saying one is foreign and one isn't. The lack of diacritics in publications before the millennium has to do with lack of standardisation and lack of technical ability to add diacritics,but those that did paved the path for more modern works maintaining diacritics. The diacritics don't alienate any English readers and there is no valid reason of utility to remove them. Zû and Zu, Chhînlung and Chhinlung are not foreign because of diacritics. They are functionally the same word and should be maintained as the more formal version consistent with the naming convention. The use of English versions over native names are for drastic changes and changes preestablished in English language. As I mentioned before the term Florence is universally used by English speakers rather than Italian Firenze. For Mizo words there is no anglicised version of these words, diacritic inclusion is purely a technical factor and does not complicate anything for non native speakers. Assuming that diacritics alienate English speakers and remove them doesn't is absurd. No English speaker sighs with relief seeing Chapchar Kut instead of Chapchâr Kût, they can recognise it's the same name as the previous article names they possibly did used to see. Changing the article name of Florence to Firenze however will misled or confuse speakers. For this reason, I will oppose any further removal of diacritics in Mizo articles in Wikipedia because no utility is gained.if you strongly still hold your opinion we can arbitrate or hold a discussion and vote with the Mizoram Wikipedia group members who also have a stake in this method of style issue. Taitesena (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
A more valid example is the Hawaiian page Māhū, much like a tribal culture with diacritics, they maintain it. I am not claiming other stuff exists for the sake of it. This is a valid doctrine among Wikipedia texts, and Mizo articles in Wikipedia is also justified in following the same way for both cultural fidelity and formality of nomenclature. Taitesena (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Taitesena, appreciate your detailed response. To me accessibility is utility. That being said... english readers can more easily search, type, and link to titles without diacritics. WP:ASTONISH suggests titles should match what readers commonly encounter in English sources. If English-language sources (newspapers, government publications) continue omitting diacritics while Mizo academic papers use them, that shows divergent conventions, and English Wikipedia follows English language ones per WP:UE as I had already mentioned. However I know that not everyone would have similar viewpoint, and I respect that wholly. but I would say that this would warrant broader input beyond Wikipedia:WikiProject Mizoram. A formal WP:RFC would be appropriate since previous discussions at WP:USEDIACRITICS failed to establish a clear consensus before. So was wondering if you would be willing to co-draft a neutrally-worded RfC on this? Thanks:) Happy editing! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The ease of typing and/or searching is not a consideration. In English wikipedia, we use the spellings used in English language sources for the page titles. The diacritic versions can also be mentioned in the lead sentence when necessary. The WP:INDICSCRIPTS policy does not prohibit roman transliterations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you are discussing the change in the Wikipage of Chapchar Kut, I do not have a definitive opinion on this yet. The existing Wikipedia rules must prevail with consensus because there can be some opposing conventions here, some of which I am unaware of. A parallel example in Nagaland would be Tokhü Emong, the harvest festival of the Lotha Naga. I strongly support the spelling of Tokhü which is used in standardised literature but not all government circulars. However, state government-supported events such as the Tokhü Emong Bird Count maintains the spelling. Now that I Googled it, Chapchar Kut on the Aizawl district website does not have the diacritics. So, I return to the point that I do not have a definitive opinion of Chapchar Kut. Astra Travasso (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
These should be discussed on a per page basis first and if you want an RfC for a particular variant of English, then you can address that at the appropriate wikiproject. WP:NCNZ has a specific naming convention for New Zealand English. Generally speaking, English wikipedia articles should use the name that is the most common in reliable English sources. This usually DOES NOT include government sources. We do not follow the official name as a Wikipedia policy.
Tokhu Emong, for example, I would support moving it to Tokhu Emong as all four of the sources cited in the article do not include the diacritic.
The same is true for Chapchar Kut- all of the sources do not use the diacritics. The diacritics belong in the start of the article and the name should also not be in WP:ITALICS as it is not a movie, play, book, song or other art piece. It being in Italics implies that the actual name of the page should be Mizo New Year with something like "called Chapchâr Kût in Mizo" in the body.
In the context of India, you will see that many Sanskrit or religious figures have diacritics because Sanskritists and other classicist researchers tend to do so. You can always redirect from the non-diacrtic name to the diacritical name so typing should not be an issue. I can participate in an RfC if you want, but I am not qualified to bring it up for a RfC. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Taitesena, I just got pinged into this conversation so I don't actually know what articles you are referring to in the first place. If you have those English language journal articles that allegedly use the diacritics, you should incorporate them into the relevant articles and add them as citations. As I mentioned above, it might be good to make a formal move discussion on a few articles before bringing up an RFC about Indian English and whether all Indian articles should use diacritics. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Flyingphoenixchips, Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I refer to articles Lilium chitrangadae, Yushania rolloana and Yushania tongpeii, created by you. A number of deficiencies have been identified in these articles, including excessive detail, missing lead sections and missing sections. I would appreciate it if you could attend to the requested improvements to improve the readability of these articles. In addition, you created Category:Yushania without correctly categorising it under the appropriate genus, and also failed to provide a sort key when assigning scientific name articles to a genus category. This omission has been corrected. I would appreciate it if you could avoid these shortcomings going forward. Regards. QEnigma论05:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@QEnigma Thanks for flagging these and for fixing the Category:Yushania sort keys. Also thanks for the heads up. I will try work through the three articles in the next few days... However tbh I was not quite sure about what you felt was excessive, since the species are obscure enough that there is not always a lot of secondary coverage to weigh against. As per WP:DETAIL we cannot really split these into more than one article owing to notability concerns. Thanks again. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Kuki National Front when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Your edits are becoming disruptive. You have been warned multiple times about the need to use preview to check your edits, yet you continue to introduce unknown parameters into articles. You did this again at Kebang when you modified the page. Please understand that while you may not find these edits a problem, they do cause issues for those attempting to clean up pages and prevent vandalism. Please respond to this message and acknowledge that you better monitor your edits moving forward. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It might have slipped, sorry if that was the case. I usually make source edits, and cannot view the source content and unsourced view most of the times, in certain articles. I must have missed it, I will ensure that this does not happen in the future Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Flyingphoenixchips, This is with regard to articles on the genus Yushania species that you created. I have observed a number of shortcomings in the published articles.
The articles have not been categorised properly nor provided with an anchor, i.e., Category:Yushania|flexa.
Many of the references you have provided lack accessible URLs with which to ascertain their accuracy.
In a number of articles, references have been duplicated, and some make no mention of the article subject.
Your addition of the Taxonbar template is not correct, i.e., it should be {{Taxonbar|from=Q15245148}} and not {{Taxonbar|from=Q}}. The required Wikidata entry can be searched for here.
The stub template should be placed at the very bottom of the page.
I would appreciate it if you could kindly revisit all the articles you have created on the genus Yushania and make the necessary corrections. Please note that on Wikipedia, accuracy is more important than the speed at which articles are created. Regards. QEnigma论05:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Flyingphoenixchips,
I just chanced upon the rejected AFC draft submission of Draft:HitPay which you rejected twice. I happen to read a lot on fintech in SEA and tweaked the article further to better meet notability guidelines. You can check when you have the time.
Latest comment: 18 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Flyingphoenixchips:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.
Please note that an unblock request would be more likely to succeed if you acknowledge that your LLM misuse was inappropriate, agree to refrain from using LLMs for Wikipedia editing in any capacity as an unblock condition, and agree to clean up all of your LLM-affected edits. —Newslingertalk03:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not wish to argue with this block, and would say it was warranted. I admit that I used AI to write articles, when I first started out. Most of the articles then were created with the help of ChatGPT as you had mentioned in the noticeboard. This was done without oversight but later on, I however started reading the contents and re-edited the text AI had produced. Yes, I mass created pages with a script when I shouldn't have and I was not fully honest about it. I am sorry for the time it cost everyone, I truly do..
I wish to however appeal this with hope that you all can allow me to edit wikipedia in probation. I would not use any AI tool at all for anything and would get the approval beforehand if its truly necessary in my part. I will not be creating any new articles or edit any other articles I had previously not touched, during this probationary period unless and until I am cleared. During this time, I am hoping to work on cleaning up the articles I worked on already. I will go through each one of them and check every claim against the actual sources. I will also remove and fix whatever does not hold up and I will keep a list on my user page so anyone can check what I have done. I will also remove any AI nonsense and fully agree to the clean up.
Stating this I agree that if I were to break any of what I said, do reblock me. I will not argue about it, but I would appreciate if I could be given a chance to clean this up. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This makes me deeply disappointed, @Flyingphoenixchips. As much as I want to populate Wikipedia with Northeast India-related pages, this route would not be the one to be taken. How is this different from the low-quality articles published in paid journals by university professors and PhD scholars? Astra Travasso (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes I got complacent I feel because this looked easier after I verified the references. Definitely on me, and true it’s kinda hypocritical on my part to have been doing this while claiming to work in removing predatory sources from Wikipedia. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Flyingphoenixchips, thank you for your response. Could you please provide a full account of the following?
All of the tools you used to generate or assist with your edits, including LLMs, scripts, and other software
Your editing process (i.e. how you used those tools) and how this process changed over time, with specific timeframes and examples from your contribution history
Any differences between your previous portrayals of your editing process (e.g. your comments in ) and your actual editing process
Being transparent here would help you reestablish trust and strengthen your appeal. After you have your answers ready, I am going to ask the other editors in the AI noticeboard discussion for input on how you can best participate in the cleanup process, which may conclude with a modification of your block. —Newslingertalk22:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Newslinger apologies for not responding sooner. I needed time to write this out properly, so you have a full view of whatever I did.
So lemme just list out all the tools out first, them being:
ChatGPT, Wispr Flow, local open source LLMs run on my own machine namely DeepSeek and later Kimi, Self written Python scripts (I will explain what they did exactly...) and a javascript based browser extension to flag "AI mishaps" (I added this to validate if AI was changing anything that I strictly asked it not to)
So now for the process in itself,
Frankly when I started out, I did not at all use AI. Most of my new articles went through AfC, and all prose were my own. This is how I actually started building up my edit history and later got to extended confirm rights. See When Blackbirds Fly, Hannah Lalhlanpuii Unfortunately these got tagged with LLMPROD as well.
After a while, I began using ChatGPT to research and find source links and used those links directly. These left the AI tellsigns even where I wrote the prose myself, and others did warn me about it. Sorry about not adding diffs here... Its extremely hard to relocate them now. After this incident I stopped doing this. I believe @Astra Travasso can also attest to my contributions to Northeast India which were mostly done at that time without AI assistance at all.
As an asian, at this point I really wanted to make a difference in bringing asian representation to wikipedia... as can be seen in my previous interactions with @RosieStep and other editors. There was a lot to write, and formatting wikitext by hand over and over was tedious. So what I did was write a python script that used two local open source models I talked about before to output correct wikitext. You might be aware of how most LLMs mess up wikitext, so I spent hours training this setup to get it right. At this point my process was ... research and write the full text myself as a .txt with sources, have the models convert it to wikitext (I found out that the model finds it easier to read/edit .txts rather than word or markups) and then add it to wikipedia myself in stages. However for some reason, this model would still insert circular sources from wikipedia itself... so what I thought was.. Hey, atleast its getting the wikitext right. Let me add the content in bulk at stages and prune through whatever stuff AI messed up, ensuring that the final pruned version was my voice/work alone. As a result, the prose herein did not carry AI signs but true... the models ended up adding nonsensical categories which I started fixing by hand.
Saying this, I also wanted to provide an example of how this happened. Do see the article history of Angelte Zai Ri and Rpa Ralte. As you can see the final version has sources mostly in Lushei which is my native tongue. None of the AI models can source or translate or understand any of these languages of Northeast India so I hope, this shows, how most of it was genuine work of my own with AI assistance (only for formatting). This is also why, the other articles submitted through AfC were mostly never rejected as AI creations.
Now going on... I started using Wispr Flow and this was mostly used when I was NPP and an AfC reviewer. I found it extremely easy to dictate. This was also the period of high review volume, that other users warned me about particularly @ChrysGalley. It caused a lot of problems and I fully accepted my mistake and stop using this altogether for AfC reviews. I also decided not to ask for the rights again after they expired so that I can first learn the ropes of Wikipedia properly before committing to reviewing articles.
Then comes the next phase... which was allowing my local workflow cloud access to whole articles in its entirety. I admit this was the most stupid mistake that I did so far (not that other stuff I described hence far were not stupid). I gave the model access to myCloud to generate whole articles from a restricted set of references I supplied. Unlike before I stopped oversight, because my models were working before (and it seemed like it did not add stuff on its own). I did this out of the longing to populate wikipedia, with notable Northeast India, Myanmar & South Korea topics, to better represent the place I and my wife comes from... I am genuinely sorry for giving you all such a hard time. This was also when @CostalCal warned me about factual errors, incorrect sources and a lot of other issues. This was clear Ai use and in retrospect I did not fully disclose this to either @CostalCal or @Fermiboson. After warnings, I went back and re-edited these in bulk using my own warning methods (the javascript thing I mentioned). See
I stopped using this method in its entirety after the incident, but at the same time I felt the longing once again to create all those amazing articles that do not exist yet in the English wikipedia. I then created articles like Kim Sa-bok, Park Dong-hyuk (soldier), For this I went back to my method of pruning articles, and ensuring that the final version of my edits, were in my own words and the references were not generated by AI. All of the content therein, were thus verified thoroughly against individual references.
Later on, I experimented a new workflow with the bamboo plant. Here, I limited total access to the internet, and began supplying the models with key phrases/sentences to limit hallucinations. I then used the same old bot script to push these edits to wikipedia. During this time I also edited stuff myself, and thats why you can see overlapping edits (small edits alongside bulk ones) in a very short time frame. I shut it down completely once it kept reusing the same few references. My most recently ran setup was with my oversight limited to the references used.
as for question 3, I did describe stuff as it was but yeah... I do not think I fully disclosed it. What I am describing to you is the complete thing.
Once again I am so very sorry for all this. I promise that...
I will not use any AI tools for wikipedia in any capacity
I will not run scripts and will not mass create articles
I thought of also showing clear examples of articles I had created without AI assistance during that phase. Do have a look at India Research Watch and Achal Agrawal. I have a conflict of interest for the two and had created the same through an AfC process with proper disclosures. See also , , , , ,
and yes, I was totally stupid when I began increasingly reliant on AI models to automate this specific process. The thing is I never meant to vandalise wikipedia, or give any of you guys a hard time. I sincerely apologize once again for all of this. I simply wanted to make wikipedia feel more representative and write on the notable topics that most editors might not generally edit. I am sorry. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Flyingphoenixchips, thank you for your detailed explanation. I have copied your comments to the AI noticeboard discussion and arranged them as an unblock request for input from editors who are assisting with the cleanup process. If any editors in the discussion ask you questions, please respond here and either I or someone else will copy your response over to the noticeboard. —Newslingertalk01:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot @Newslinger. I also thought of responding to a few points you raised on When Blackbirds Fly and Hannah Lalhlanpuii. The reason why GPT links existed in the first drafts was because, I solely used GPT to compile a list of sources that might be of interest for further research. I then went on those website and wrote the stuff out myself. I inserted the links through the normal process (visual edit). As you can see only one of them had the gpt tag (the author's college profile). Subsequently I started editing and pruning the articles myself, and got the article accepted through the AfC process. GPT was not used to write the said article. This is what I meant Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Rosiestep Also fyi @Newslinger, I mentioned her to show my intent behind all of the articles. I tbh am quite inspired by her work, in making wikipedia inclusive and wanted to do the same in bringing asian related articles to wikipedia. Ik i heavily messed up. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
thanks for the time in going through them, and yeah I'm not really brushing off the specific things you found, but I don't think "LLM output" really follows from them. As mentioned above, I did use an LLM to help me in webscrapping and finding sources. You noted that it was a hallmark of recent AI, but the article itself was created long time back. Thing is, I didn't say these were definitely clean. See this edit . I did use AI to webscrap sources, but the write up was my own. I gave another list of clean articles. What I wanted to say about this one was that it was heavily pruned and the current state of the article was accepted through an AfC, and the final result was totally my own.
The weird author fields like "Reporter, Staff" are Citoid (basically a fragment of wikipedia itself) It was not me and not a model. The thing is when you add a ref through Wiki's Visual Editor's cite tool it scrapes the page metadata, and a lot of news sites literally have "Newsdesk" or "Staff Reporter" in there.. and even if they don't for some odd reason wikipedia add them there somehow? Do test it out yourself. Back then I was extremely new and did not even have extended confirm rights (I don't even thing I had the right to add articles to mainspace). This was the time when I leaned on visual edits heavily. The odd inline placement is the same reason... well I wrote the book first (Quite loved it) and that was one reason why I wanted to have a wikipedia article about the author and her book. I added refs after, which is exactly what produces citations sitting slightly wrong. A lot came from my own reading... and slowly I began improving the draft based on the AfC comments. I was learning how to use wikipedia during that period so please do not judge me on the history of the said article. I simply added that to show how I was like as a new editor. I agree on the specific education line, but her education is true and it's verifiable in source 4, sitting in the same paragraph. It was not an invented fact but an error on my part when I was adding references.
Also same thing for the close paraphrasing and peacock phrasing I'll own. I was quite new then and had no idea how encyclopedic article should be writetn. I hope you agree that tight paraphrasing and a bit of puffery is the most common new-editor mistake there is. Same with the OR bit and the "A Bird Called Freedom" and conflict-portrayal lines. do please see the final version of the article as it stands now which was heavily edited to be accepted by an AfC reviewer Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@M kuhner are you talking about this diff? ? As mentioned above I was a new editor then, and it can definitely not be a new LLM as you pointed out. It was last year, and at that time I was still relatively new and was still going through the AfC process to get articles approved. I copy pasted the content onto wikipedia, and added the sources through a visual edit. as you can see they are not at all neatly arranged and the order is messy because I was adding them directly with the ref tool. LLM's don't format references in that manner. Not even the new ones or even the old ones, unless you train the new ones on wikitext. Also see this. I added the whole chunk at once Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@M kuhner by copy paste, I meant I first wrote it out locally and then moved to wikipedia, and used the visual editor to add the references. And I am sorry once again. As you had mentioned there are almost no editors working in this area, and I wanted to cover as much as I can... this is why I ended up becoming complacent. If given the chance, I am willing to clean up the whole mess I created. Sorry again for giving you all such a hard time. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
wanted to ping you here since I am unable to participate in the discussion? Would it perhaps be possible to userify or draftify the articles tagged for prod? I am willing to rework them (before touching anything else) and go through the AfD process. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Kowal2701Thanks I appreciate it. Much of the older articles were not fully AI generated. Yes I did take help for the initial draft and then reworked them myself. Later on down the line I got complacent with the newer articles (which I am not proud of) and would like to improve them without any ai assistance. Most of those articles were notable by themselves so I wouldn’t want them to be lost. I’m sorry about all this! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
While I appreciate the admins who enlisted 696 articles edited over the years by @Flyingphoenixchips, substantial number of them were not AI generated. Some of these were smaller edits from proper sources. I do defer that there was no other way to fix this. Astra Travasso (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to point out, the first few articles that were listed in PROD were not AI generated. You can also use a detector to ascertain this and all of those were backed by sources. I did evaluate the individual sources as well. Most of the assisted edits were also the recent ones. The reason why my edits appear as such is because I use ai to research topics, and then write them out in a .txt file first. I use those text files to subsequently transfer edits to Wikipedia. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Kowal2701, I know you tagged all the old articles in good will but I hadn’t used ai at all for those articles. Some of them were also approved and created by the AfC process. You can tell by the sources added and the writing structure as well. Could you kindly take a look at the articles like India Research Watch and Achal Agrawal? There are others articles in the list you tagged as well. Those were created when I was a relatively new wikipedian and they were done without AI assistance. Then later i started using wispr flow and got complacent with the more recent articles. I feel tagging the old articles don’t make any sense since AI was not used for them. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
FWIW we don't use automated detectors because they're not particularly reliable and rarely cite evidence (though I'm not an expert at this unlike some people at AINB). Looking at the earliest three articles I LLMPRODed (June 2024), Theyiechüthie Sakhrie has some hallmarks of LLM use, WP:AIVOCAB such as emphasized and highlighted, WP:AITITLECASE, but most obvious is the red-linked categories and file, LLMs often hallucinate these. That's replicated in the earlier two, Naara Aaba and Makum people; in the latter the ISBN in "Further reading" doesn't exist and isn't even close to any of the true ones (ie. not a typo). Ofc there are some signs indicative of human-written content, like not capitalising "Assamese" (I expect errors in citation placement also, but idk, has obvious hallmarks and still has that issue). The two you say were human-written, Hannah Lalhlanpuii and When Blackbirds Fly (March 2025), don't have obvious signs of either LLM- or human-written content, but sort of have the promotional/WP:SUPERFICIAL writing consistent w LLM use (and title case). Ofc the most reliable way to tell is to check the sources support the content (WP:V), but that's time-consuming. I've already spent an hour tagging articles, now like 30 mins on analysis, I'll kindly ask you not to waste our time. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No worries, thanks for the time. I just felt bad about getting the AfC created articles deleted, because they easily passed notability, and I do not know when someone might go about recreating them.... as wikipedia already has low representation when it comes to asian cultures.
Also @CheeseandJamSamdwich, the article Mary Dawgni was not GPT generated. The information about her being from myanmar was added based on secondary sources. Do see and . Both of them are reliable newspapers. I understand that what I did later on was wrong (I truly feel sorry about this), but come on not all of my edits since day one were AI generated. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
also fyi most of the sources are in Mizo. LLMs and AI models cannot read and write in those languages, so it would be virtually impossible for an AI generated article to even have them (especially since vanglaini and other such newspapers are not scrapable by AI models) Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Flyingphoenixchips, it's presumptive removal because nobody has time to review all your contributions and filter out the minority which is okay (and we can't really take your word for it because of WP:MANDY and past experiences). Just focus on getting unblocked/permitted to cleanup this up yourself (we usually have to stubbify or rewrite LLM-generated content, people often underestimate just how problematic and time-consuming it is). Newslinger will respond in due time and this'll likely be resolved one way or the other before the PRODed articles get deleted (which is 5 days). Even so, you can always request WP:REFUNDs anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wanted to address your comment in particular on speed. Tbh I am not fond of it either and I fully understand why it read badly. I was not racing anyone. Also just to make one thing clear, most of my larger edits to existing articles were not AI at all as also pointed out by @Astra Travasso previously. The exceptions were topics I am not trained in like mostly biological areas. My restructuring of Theoretical Physics, Manipur conflict (2023–present), Arambai Tenggol, the University of Pennsylvania article and Mizo names was done by hand, and other editors had actively reviewed that work and said it made those articles better sourced and in many ways less biased. And these were editors I frequently clashed with in terms of disagreement on WP:NPOV. Those though are subjects I am close to professionally or through where I am from (Northeast India). The AI use was almost solely used for article creation, and this part I will not defend. It was stupid and I am sorry for the cleanup it caused. I wanted to also say to @ChrysGalleythat I had no intention to vandalise or waste anyone's time, and I am not proud of it. I only was hoping to expand how asian cultures are represented here.
I did also provide a list of clean and non clean articles before. I had first established trust through the AfC process on wikipedia, and I do not mind doing the same again. Thanks:) Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Flyingphoenixchips - replying to both messages - yes I fully accept your apology, and I particularly appreciate your candour since compared to some other AI Noticeboard entries it saves a lot of time spent on arguing. On the AI noticeboard I have expressed the view that you should indeed take back your best articles into draft space for eventual AFC review. I actually hope it is a great deal more than two articles, in due course, so long as it is a fully LLM free effort. However I don't which to pre-empt the administrator process on your appeal, which given the scale of this may need a bit of time. It doesn't matter too much since if and when you are given some sort of access this would also enable WP:REFUND to userfication, unless I am much mistaken. and doubtless you have made copies anyway. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Newslinger, and I am not sure if you would like to copy this comment thread over as well which was my response to ChrysGalley
also @ChrysGalley Yes a WP:REFUND would always work. I do not have much attachments to the rest of the articles (maybe perhaps its because these two were COI articles lol), but I would definitely love to have them on wikipedia (as they are notable and would be good to expand the current coverage of the english wikipedia). There are a few clean articles which I also happened to link previously, I would like to save but I can always get a Refund. For the more recent articles, which were fully automated, I feel it might be better for me to rework them from scratch, and it might save you guys some time to from all the clean up. I am hoping to take ownership and make the cleanup process as easy as possible, for all of you. So please do be assured that if you have any questions on any article I worked on, I shall answer as truthfully as I can:) Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not see how it’s POV when I solely used references that talked about it? I feel it’s a notable topic needless to say and I have worked on other topics that goes against this POV as well Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Flyingphoenixchips, I noticed you've created many plant articles. Did you also use the same process? what about large edits made on plant articles, such as this ? I'm wondering, as I've since been trying to clean up the Lilium mackliniae article and in doing so have noticed several citations which have failed verification. It's been a tedious. EM (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Eucalyptusmint I sincerely apologize for the trouble. I used the same process as I did for the species of the genus Yushania. I did however clean up the AI generated hallucinations afterwards for Lilium mackliniae. It should not have caused issues. The other sources like were not added by me, they were already present in the article. I think this was an old article from a website that no longer exist. You can see the web archive link of the same. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Flyingphoenixchips, thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard §Block appeal (Flyingphoenixchips). As a result of your appeal, I have reduced your sitewide block to a block from article space, which allows you to edit drafts and participate on talk pages and noticeboards. You are invited to assist with the rest of the AI cleanup, and are welcome to submit edit requests to propose changes to articles. Please use the template {{Edit partially-blocked}} on an article talk page to request an edit to the corresponding article. Once the AI cleanup process is complete, and you have submitted enough successful edit requests to establish a positive track record of LLM-free editing, you are welcome to request a full unblock on your user talk page (this page) with the {{unblock}} template, per the guide to appealing blocks. Thanks again. —Newslingertalk15:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, also would appreciate if you could provide the drafts for Solung, Angelte Zai Ri, Chang-Hwan Choi and 2026 Manipur bombing. I plan to rework the articles with minimal use of AI, and rewrite fully AI-generated pages from scratch where needed. Also could you also let me know if I have the permission to edit the tracking list? I would like to help with the cleanup effort by logging minor edits. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've just finished draftifying the remaining articles (except for a few with significant contributions from other editors, which I tagged and left in mainspace), you can see a list of your drafts here. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have withdrawn this nomination. Whenever you create a new category: 1) please add parent categories; 2) please look in the parent categories if articles can be moved from the parent categories to the new-created category. I have done that now for you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.
Hey @Abhinab Pegu I hope you can see the discussion in my talk page, but I wanted to ping you regarding this? Do correct me if I am wrong, I am not a Tani or an adi person, but isn’t Kebang only used by the Adis. That’s based on the sources I could find. Also I feel if the topic is notable (as you feel so yourself) this should be stubbified instead. You never know when someone might take up creating a new article on the topic. I faced the same issue when I had nominated Mizo articles to AfD for them being poorly sourced. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi thanks for responding. Your question that if Kebang is only used by the Adis..no they are not the only one use this term. Infact this is simply a terminology used by many Tani tribes that means a village council. Among the Adis it is called Kebang and exactly same is terms is also used by the Mising people written as Kébang in Mising orthography. In modern usage organisation like Mising Agom Kebang, Takam Mising Porin Kebang, also uses them in their name. You might have not got much info about this online because due to the lack of accessible sources. Similarly the term "Buliang" is used by the Apatani people. Since this is more of a general terminology shared by many tani tribes, it will misleading to create one for the Adi tribe. I'm from the Mising tribe so i caught the issue immediately, but general public might not be aware of this. Hence it is better just to delete for now, if no editor is willing to fix the issue. It is kinda debatable if it is really notable, so i have submitted an AFD instead. Abhinab Pegu (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Abhinab Pegu I see, thanks for pointing it out. However I do not think the reason for "no editor" to fix the issue, is a criteria for notability. There are so few editors from Northeast India so it makes sense why they won't take it up. That was partly why I ended up automating a lot of articles so as to ensure Northeast and rest of asia are fairly represented here in wikipedia. You will be surprised to note that many MLAs/MPs or even padma shri honors did not previously have articles even though they are inherently notable Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Flyingphoenixchips. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 14 days ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I received your email. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with the situation to get involved with the specific articles you had highlighted. I agree with the above thread regarding your block and specifically the recommendations when approaching an unblock request as the next initial steps. Best, SpencerT•C22:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Kowal2701 I was hoping to add my response to both yours and @Zalaraz comment. I can supply whatever I wrote to @Spencer herein, and I hope @Spencer corrects it if its misrepresentated. I do not know how it was a POV push for creating the two said articles, when they had reliable sources backing them up. There are multiple newspapers out there that documents this case. do see this research paper, and . Also just to make them aware, I also edited multiple articles that would appear to be against such a pov, or for that matter against extremist in Northeast India. See Tani Army, Kuki National Army and others. There are multiple times I agreed with @Zalaraz and times I disagreed (most notably was adding the word right wing to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh). He had also thanked me for my edits in Hindu American Foundation where I restored vandalism by a certain user.
As for the email I sent to @Spencer here is the same:
Hey @Spencer
The reason why I am emailing you is because I cannot access your userpage and because you answered my COI edit request before. I do not have words to describe how sorry I feel, for betraying the trust of fellow wikipedians. I am extremely sorry for this! Because of my stupidity, even the older articles I edited are now tagged for PROD. What hurts the most is seeing the AfC-created articles get deleted (non AI assisted ones), because they easily passed notability, and I don't know if or when someone will recreate them. Wikipedia already has low representation of Asian cultures, especially the northeast indian/burmese ones. I got complacent because there was a lot to write, and I wanted NE India to have a fair representation in Wikipedia. I know I am extremely stupid for this.
I was quite worried about two specific articles that I actually created through the AfC process after disclosing a Conflict of Interest.
As you can see none of these were AI generated and all sources are verifiable. I was wondering if it would be possible to rescue them from PROD? I completely understand if you'd rather not, given everything that has happened. Either way, I'm sorry again.
Best wishes,
Adrian
I was worried about the two articles because they were created by proper AfC channels without any single AI assistance, and I did not wish for them to go to waste because of the stupid stuff I ended up doing.
also to make others aware, will this not be considered canvassing? I did not make much of it before but I thought it would be good to bring to your alls notice. It appears like certain users which I do not wish to name, with issues with the said article I created (and who accused me of POV edits) have been doing so themselves? I am sorry about this. I really hope we all can work together on improving the encyclopaedia. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also to add to this, I trust @Kowal2701 would agree that Wikipedia is not censored. I still fail to see how I was making POV based edits? I have always gone back to a user's talk page if there is an apparent dispute. I would never revert an edit more than 3 times. You are free to examine my edit history, if you feel I am misrepresenting myself. I also had several disagreements with @Kautilya3 but I still respect him for the work he has put in. The best way to build an encyclopaedia is establishing consensus not accusing others of POV edits. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
and also @Kowal2701 I am sorry for having pinged you but please do see the diff . I do not think there were any issues with WP:SYNTH and others, as whatever I added was based on scholarly sources. The reason why I undid the previous redirect was also explained by an edit summary (stating that multiple scholarly sources do use the term fetish), and I also provided the sources for them. However the editor, who is also visible in the image I shared above simply denied such a thing. So I do not see how its not a POV case against them, especially since they have demonstrated similar patterns across multiple articles concerning Northeast India where "discrimination" faced by the people of the said region by mainstream indians were brought to notice. They also appears to actively promote a certain POV by canvassing off wiki? I had also shared similar incidents in the past with @EmeraldRange. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
thanks for the suggestions. There were a few articles that I created with only some ai assistance (mostly to format the wiki text) and these are the articles I want to help clean up by verifying each content source by source. I was the one who edited them so it should not be tedious for most parts. For the rest of the articles that were completely ai generated I agree that a rewrite will be the best option.
also for the contentious topics involving South Asia. I am well aware and have also warned other new users in the past. I have never edit warred recently and whenever there was a dispute I would always use the talk page to discuss it first or if it’s unsettled use a dispute resolution noticeboard. You can see for yourself in the past discussions up here in my talk page itself:) Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Nomadwikiholic1, left the following feedback:
Hey thanks for the review but could you let me know why the sources are not reliable/in adequate? I’m asking this because from my understanding Nature (journal), The Hindu and other Indian newspapers and media like the ThePrint and India Today are meant to be reliable. There is also quite a few coverage in other newspapers outside india Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Flyingphoenixchips!
Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article.
To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk.
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
India Research Watch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.
Future articles
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
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.
Latest comment: 1 hour ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:
From what I understand, this was draftified for your chronic usage of AI. I see the first paragraph wasn't edited at all since this article was first created and seems to have a pattern consistent with machine writing. Are you certain this article wasn't one of the ones you wrote with AI assistance?
Next steps
Edit Draft:Solung to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.
Hey @Sulfurboy could you be specific on what exactly sounds machine generated. This was written without ai assistance as you could tell by how the references were formatted (not organised and also there were cite errors owing to the aed reference script in the visual editor). You can also confirm that each claim is actually present in the cited sources. Ai usually make errors. Also as can be seen in the notice board concerning my ai use, most of it were large automated articles (more recently). Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Chang-Hwan Choi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.
Future articles
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
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.
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please don't remove any Articles for Creation templates from declined or rejected drafts. If you believe that you have addressed the reason a draft was rejected, you can contact the rejecting reviewer and request that they remove the template to make it possible for you to resubmit. (Other AfC templates, including reviewer comments, should remain on the draft until it has been accepted by a reviewer). --bonadeacontributionstalk19:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manipur Institute of Technology. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Such more could ban you. SatnaamIN (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A Case Study in Biting Newcomers: The Catch-22 of Draft:AuDHD. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mizo Hmeichhe Insuihkhawm Pawl 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 your 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. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Your edits are becoming disruptive. You have been warned multiple times about the need to use preview to check your edits, yet you continue to introduce unknown parameters into articles. You did this again at Kebang when you modified the page. Please understand that while you may not find these edits a problem, they do cause issues for those attempting to clean up pages and prevent vandalism. Please respond to this message and acknowledge that you better monitor your edits moving forward. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. Please see Draft:Achal Agrawal, Draft:India Research Watch, Draft:When Blackbirds Fly and Draft:Hannah Lalhlanpuii. — Newslinger talk 17:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
