| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. |
first edit to my talk page (2003-03-15)
edit| This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 09:54, 10 January 2126 (UTC). |
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149 10:13, 15 March 2003 (edit by User:Mav at 10:13 on 15 March 2003)
Request for review
editHi there, I am writing you to ask whether you could help me with the review of the page European Partnership for Democracy, on which I've been working on so that it fits with the community standards. I would be grateful if your expertise could help me enhancing it again, if it needs to, or if you could validate the publication. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Coffeebreak12 16:18, 23 November 2021 (CET)
Malalai Joya
editHi. In the article 'Malalai Joya', you changed the title of the section 'Current condition' to 'Islamic Republic'. What was your intended meaning behind this change?
The edit in question: [1] --AdamM (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AdamM: There's no guarantee that any Wikipedia article will be kept up to date. In practice, I have personally seen many articles e.g. from the mid 2000s writing about what's happening "now" or "currently", that sound suspiciously like they're neither "now" nor "current" in the normal sense of the words. The reader cannot make sense of these without investigating the process of writing the article, finding out when the text was added. We should not force the reader to have to guess when an article was written. There's a standard explanation of this at WP:RELTIME.But I see that my edit was messed up (thanks for spotting that!): the Taliban pseudo-government is the Islamic Emirate, not the Islamic Republic. My intention was to describe the epoch in a generally NPOV way, and to separate that sentence from the previous section, Announcement of political comeback, since her actions during the Taliban-2.0 epoch in Afghanistan are not really part of an announcement of a political comeback - they're a reaction to the takeover of the country by the Taliban. There might be a better section title, especially since Joya has lived through both the Islamic Emirate epochs. The idea is to have a section title (and contents) that will still be valid if it happens that nobody makes any further edits to the article. So far there are only two sentences in the section - so alternatives for the section title could be something like "Post-Aug-2021" (but then the reader who knows less about dates will have to search for what is special about Aug 2021) or "Post 2021 fall-of-Kabul" (but that's a bit heavy). You can probably think of something better. I suggest that you WP:BEBOLD if you have a good idea, and further debate on this question could go on the talk page there so that anyone else interested in the article is more likely to see it. Boud (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I surmised it may have been an error, but didn't want to assume. Thanks for correcting it. Can't think of a better section title at this time. --AdamM (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 18:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Happy Holidays
edit| Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025! | |
|
Hello Boud, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Request for Comment on Sisi Article
edit— Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has an RfC
editAbdel Fattah el-Sisi has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Firecat93 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2025
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ITN recognition for 2024–2025 Georgian constitutional crisis
edit
On 3 January 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024–2025 Georgian constitutional crisis, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 18:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
That's good work on that article! Schwede66 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
source
editDear @Boud: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I understand how important it is to maintain high standards for sourcing on Wikipedia. When I added the reference to Newsweek, I did so in good faith, as I recall it being a respected publication during my upbringing. I wasn't aware that the community's perception of the source has shifted over time, and I appreciate you pointing this out. If we had talked about it first, I would have gladly reverted it myself. Collaboration and communication are key to building a better encyclopedia, and I value the chance to learn and improve. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention, and I'll be more careful about vetting sources in the future. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help address this matter. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2025
edit
Announcements from other communities:
Tip of the month:
Suggestion:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2025
edit
Announcements from other communities: Tip of the month:
Moving the needle:[1]
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period! Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
References
Women in Red April 2025
edit
Announcements (Events facilitated by others):
Tip of the month:
Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool)
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2025
edit
Announcements (events facilitated by others):
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 09:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red June 2025
edit
Announcements:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red July 2025
edit
Announcements:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 09:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi!
editHi Boud,
How are you doing? HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 05:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2025
edit
Announcements:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Precious anniversary
edit| Four years! |
|---|
Women in Red September 2025
editRecognized as the most successful topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10
editRecognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever.
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Page name fixed
editAs per your proposal, I moved it to 2025 Georgian attempted uprising shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
editHi Boud. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invite :). Done Boud (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Rights Georgia
editHello! Your submission of Rights Georgia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Archive time?
editI came here to drop you a barnstar, but your talk page is so immense it caused my browser to freeze for a minute or two :( May I kindly suggest you archive it? I recommend auto-archiving solutions, like the one I set up on my own talk page years ago (every year or so I just need to edit it and change the archive page number...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Fair enough. I hadn't thought about the RAM load and frugal computing[1], which is not yet in Wikipedia, even though degrowth already is. Boud (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ Wim Vanderbauwhede 2022, arXiv:2303.06642
A barnstar for you!
edit| The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for the immense work c/e, unasked, the Russian sabotage operations in Europe. It's an important topic (too current to be GA-ed, I fear...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC) |
Nomination of Rights Georgia for deletion
editThe article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rights Georgia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Belated Wiki Anniversary Wishes 🎉
edit
Dear Boud,
Your wiki anniversary was 7 days ago, marking 17 years (as per SUL) of dedicated service! I wanted to extend a heartfelt thanks for your amazing contributions. With over 48,696 edits, your dedication is an inspiration to the community. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead!
Use this Tool to send wiki anniversary wishes to other amazing Wikimedians.
- @Suyash.dwivedi: धन्यवद् (sp?) :). But just for the record, my first logged-in pl.Wikipedia edit was on 28 August 2002 and my first logged-in edit on en.Wikipedia was in March 2003, so I guess SUL is a bit buggy, by five and a half to six years, depending on whether you count other-language-Wikipedia edits or not. Boud (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red - November 2025
editRecognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of Marek Kotański for deletion
editThe article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Kotański until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.AfD
editI saw the AfD for Rights Georgia and I agree with the other editors that the English language coverage is not sufficient to establish notability (your argument that is basically an IAR keep isn't being taken well). However, I was wondering if you searched in Georgian - I was able find some interesting coverage. I don't think it shows notability, but you might be able to add some information to Human rights in Georgia or Non-governmental organizations in Georgia (country). Katzrockso (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I forgot to post the sources here, but here are some mentions [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and there are tons more, but I haven't checked their reliability. Unfortunately I didn't find anything that covered the NGO more extensively. Katzrockso (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Katzrockso: Thanks for the sources.To some degree you're right that I was invoking WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, though with the more nuanced "interpret in the context of the overall Wikipedia goals" rather than "ignore". 5P5 is stated in the lead of WP:POLICY as
Policies and guidelines should be applied using reason and common sense.
It continues withPolicy and guideline pages are living documents that attempt to describe the actual practice of experienced editors
, but it's clear that most of the people who participated following the OP's statement and two-person discussion agreed to view the policy as prescriptive rather than descriptive. My impression is that they don't seem to be people with extensive editing experience in Wikipedia on NGOs outside of the core Anglosphere and closely related topics. That's not their fault - they made the best judgment they could based on their experience, access to sources, and views of the goals of Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy and guidelines have evolved over two decades, and they're going to continue evolving. For this particular article, I've dropped the stick. Maybe there'll be more editors on the general topic sooner or later. Or maybe not. Boud (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)- I also saw a hint of WP:NEXIST there too, which isn't unappreciated. I agree there are still serious, major issues with how Wikipedia covers topics outside of the Anglosphere and how editors refuse to recognize that there are sources most editors do not have access to, but I'm not sure how to address that problem. It took me ages to find sources for Jacinto Bondanza Castro and even after the nominator agreed he was notable and the AfD was withdrawn, and the page still was erroneously speedy deleted! Katzrockso (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Katzrockso: Thanks for the sources.To some degree you're right that I was invoking WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, though with the more nuanced "interpret in the context of the overall Wikipedia goals" rather than "ignore". 5P5 is stated in the lead of WP:POLICY as
Peace project
editDear Boud,
Thank you for your significant work on wikipedia. I appreciated your helpful (and instructive) adjustments of my edits on International Criminal Court. I recently through the wikiproject Peace on your page with great interest, and consequently made some contributions in the treaties category. While I'm considering adding my name to the list, I thought I might ask some question to you directly. It seems like all the references and external links towards peacemaker.un.org are dead or redirect to unrelated pages. Do you know why this might happen, and how this could be fixed? The waybackachive often doesnt work so well for me on UN sites. Additionalky, I was curious if wikiprojects exist seperately per wiki platform? I have limited experience there, but for peace treaties/agreements, additional contributions on wikidata or wikisource could be quite helpful.
Kind regards SarahSmithLay (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- hi @SarahSmithLay:. Glad to work together :).Dead/obsolete peacemaker.un.org - Every now and then, typically on a 5-10 yr time scale, the sysadmins and other people who manage a website decide that maintaining the old system is no longer practical or useful. They update the system, and decide that the effort to maintain permalinks for the old system is not worth it - in link rot#Causes I would guess either
the restructuring of websites that causes changes in URLs
ora change in server architecture ...
as the most likely reasons. Non-geeky people involved in the decisions may believe that "it's still there on the internet" and not realise the archival value of permalinks, especially to UN component organisations.If you consider these links useful enough, you could try contacting the webmaster, or maybe search for a specific email, and propose that permalinks be created for the old content - your chances of convincing someone to do the work are probably low, but maybe not zero: UN employees know that their web pages are useful. It's quite likely that backups of the old pages are available - especially web pages whose content is just text.There's a problem about half a year or so old where archiving of many websites or particular documents on those websites is un-archivable by Wayback due to Cloudflare or other anti-LLM-scraper software. Archive.today also has problems on some websites. Both of these popular archivers have flaws: when someone looks at a Wayback archive, it normally runs (I think) an identical copy javascript from the original website, which risks the same privacy violations as the original page; archive.today provides a static html page (without re-running the original javascript) but violates the privacy of the person archiving and the person reading the archive's privacy by going through Google captcha; although archive.today has lasted 13 years, and we can hope that the person running it has made it robust and prepared for the bus factor, that's just a hope - there's no institutional solidity backing it. The advantage of Internet Archive (Wayback) is that it's a solid nearly-three-decades-old institution. For any web page X that needs archiving, I generally try an archive both with Wayback and with Archive.today, though I only actually use one archival URL in Wikipedia/Wikidata, with the assumption that a robot can add the other one later if needed.if wikiprojects exist seperately per wiki platform?
: I agree that Wikidata and Wikisource would both be quite useful for the WikiProject Peace. The goals and methods and cultures are somewhat different but complementary on each project, and obviously cooperation is to be encouraged: it depends on whether there are people who actually do editing and effectively start working together. I see d:Wikidata:WikiProjects saysdo not hesitate to initiate a new one!
, so seems to have a low threshold for "creating" a WikiProject; while s:Wikisource:WikiProject seems to more closely follow Wikipedia style, i.e. there's no point declaring a WikiProject to exist and hoping that people will turn up and edit together. It's something like a more organised step up from two-way or few-way chats on talk pages. A ten-way chat on user talk pages to coordinate editing would start getting messy. You're welcome to add links to your edits at User talk:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace in "chat" style with a signature, to help encourage others, or if you think some edits make sense at User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace for people looking for what needs to be done, then go ahead and do them; there's no obligation to list yourself "officially" as a project member. Boud (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)- Dear @Boud,
- Thank you for your considerate response! Your insights about link rot, archiving and wikiprojects are very helpful. I did some searches to get an idea of the use peacemaker.un.org. I used, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=peacemaker.un.org https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22peacemaker.un.org%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22peacemaker.un.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1
- Do you think this reflects the current usage across en.wikipedia? Additionally, what would be the way to handle a referencd like 17 in this article Northern Ireland, the archived link correctly refers to the agreement, but the current link redirects to an unrelated page.
- Many thanks and warm regards SarahSmithLay (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- @SarahSmithLay: Those three Wikipedia and WM Commons searchlinks look correct. If you're preparing a message to the UN webmasters to try to convince them that it would be useful to restore the old links as URL redirections, you can list a few of the links that are obsolete, such as this or this that I found from your search links by arbitrarily selecting a few.If UN techies are unwilling to do anything (or communication fails - the UN is a huge multi-organisation organisation and who is willing to respond or have time to do something is not transparent like on WMF wikis), and if the pages are actually available but at different URLs, then an alternative could be to suggest at WP:TECHPUMP that if someone wants to create a bot to replace the obsolete URLs by the live ones, then that would be useful to Wikipedia. There might be a page for putting bot wishlists - some people are good at that and might be able to do one easily.NI ref 17 - The crude way to handle this is to remove the |url-status=live parameter (or change it to |url-status=dead). But if you look at Template:Citation#URL you'll see more nuanced options. In this case, I changed to |url-status=deviated. While the visual (rendered) effect of removing url-status totally or setting it to deviated appears identical (the "primary" link is the archive; and the word "original" links to the original URL), having the nuance of deviated stored in the source code makes it available for future possible changes in the mediawiki software and for bots, and also for humans who edit. Boud (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I wasnt preparing a message yet, but i guess I could try reaching out. While those link that you mentioned show obsolete pages, many of the pages redirect to unrelated pages/documents. I would think restoring old links would be the solution for these pages.
- For example
- http://peacemaker.un.org/node/1113 is linked from Comprehensive Peace Accord
- http://peacemaker.un.org/node/143 is linked from Bicesse Accords SarahSmithLay (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- @SarahSmithLay: These two are both cases of WP:EXTERNAL links in the External links section, which has a different role to inline citations. At Comprehensive Peace Accord, the obsolete link is a purely numbered URL ../node/1113, and the new one .../en/node/9215 is just a numbered link too. So my guess is that there's a fair chance that en/node/9215 might become a deviated link too, since the numbers may be generated from a list of files. Lists of files changes (additions, removals), so if CPA was the 1113th a few years ago, and is now the 9215th, in another few years it might be the 12531st. For external links sections, I think that adding {{web archive}} makes sense. This is a lot less work than creating a full citation (either in Wikidata or directly in Wikipedia) for inline citations. If you (or anyone) has the time and patience to add the source to Wikisource, then that would bypass the need to depend on non-WMF archivers, but that could be a lot of work. If UN employees and managers could be convinced to and learn how to and actually add documents directly to Wikisource - following the standards expected there and whatever WP:COI policies are in place there (I see s:Wikisource:Requests for comment/Disclosure policy - a discussion in 2014/2015) - that would make sense to me. If they see it actually happening, then they might join in.Anyway, back to what's more practical by individual editors for the External links section, it's of course better to replace obsolete URLs by live ones, but if you don't want your effort to look confusing to a reader in 10 or 20 years' time, adding {{web archive}} is an easy step that would require the future reader to only do one extra click rather than having to use the external web site's own search engine. Wayback seems reasonably likely to exist in 10-20 years; it's anyone's guess if archive.today will still be around.For inline citations where an archive exists and the original URL has deviated, I still think that |url=deviated makes sense; there's no need to find a new live URL for an old treaty. Boud (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- @SarahSmithLay: Those three Wikipedia and WM Commons searchlinks look correct. If you're preparing a message to the UN webmasters to try to convince them that it would be useful to restore the old links as URL redirections, you can list a few of the links that are obsolete, such as this or this that I found from your search links by arbitrarily selecting a few.If UN techies are unwilling to do anything (or communication fails - the UN is a huge multi-organisation organisation and who is willing to respond or have time to do something is not transparent like on WMF wikis), and if the pages are actually available but at different URLs, then an alternative could be to suggest at WP:TECHPUMP that if someone wants to create a bot to replace the obsolete URLs by the live ones, then that would be useful to Wikipedia. There might be a page for putting bot wishlists - some people are good at that and might be able to do one easily.NI ref 17 - The crude way to handle this is to remove the |url-status=live parameter (or change it to |url-status=dead). But if you look at Template:Citation#URL you'll see more nuanced options. In this case, I changed to |url-status=deviated. While the visual (rendered) effect of removing url-status totally or setting it to deviated appears identical (the "primary" link is the archive; and the word "original" links to the original URL), having the nuance of deviated stored in the source code makes it available for future possible changes in the mediawiki software and for bots, and also for humans who edit. Boud (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
edit
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red - December 2025
editRecognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.
Announcements:
Tip of the Month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
December 2025
editWelcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Cambalachero: I agree that this edit was offtopic. I noticed that after saving and didn't get around to reverting it; sorry.However, we do have a section Wikipedia:Large language models#Handling suspected LLM-generated content that currently gives advice on removing LLM-generated content, without any warning to Wikipedians that by doing so, we may be feeding data into LLMs ourselves. I don't really see the problem in raising the question about possibly modifying the content of WP:LLM at the WP:LLM talk page, although I'm not sure exactly what change to propose. I don't want to discourage people from cleaning AI slop, but I don't see a problem in thinking about what sort of support is needed for people doing this (voluntary) work. In a sense, we have social support via radical transparency (there are no NDAs for Wikipedia editing), and we use deliberative, participatory, transparent decision-making, so our situation is different. Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree on whether it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Large language models. Boud (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)