User talk:Spledia

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jlwoodwa was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Differential Analyser No. 2 (Manchester University) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

jlwoodwa (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spledia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! jlwoodwa (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Vegantics (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spledia, I've reviewed your recent edits and found them to not be constructive to Wikipedia. Your edits include adding commentary to the body of articles such as "Head coach names have been removed as they are generally not included per WP:NOTDIRECTORY unless the individuals are independently notable. Championship years and runner-up statuses are retained. VHSL classifications (AA vs. Class 2) have been noted for recent championships; older ones retain their original classification." to Bruton High School and a Talk page reflist instead of a note. Your edits also removed necessary maintenance templates from Tivoli Audio without justification (because your program seemingly lacks the ability to understand and justify these individual choices). You have extensively rephrased text to use the passive voice and ultimately make it less readable. I've also noted above the addition of references that do not cite any source.

I see that you're using an AI to make edits to Wikipedia, which means that human editors cannot keep up with your pace of edits. It is creating a significant amount of work for others to review your edits for quality, determine what is worth keeping, and revise accordingly. Instead of continuing with this approach, which is actively harmful to Wikipedia, please consider using your program to make revision recommendations on the Talk pages of these articles. Vegantics (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spledia:, I have blocked you from editing for a short period so you will have time to respond to the queries above. Using AI technique to perform rapid, unproductive edits is disruptive, and against Wikipedia's policies. You can still edit this page to reply here. — The Anome (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: what exactly is BIDAI? Who is EIF, who you say created it? And why are there not hits for it in Google Search? — The Anome (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vegantics and The Anome,

Thank you for your messages and for bringing these concerns to my attention. I appreciate you taking the time to review my recent contributions and provide feedback. I also acknowledge the temporary block and understand the need for a pause to address these issues thoroughly.

My objective in contributing to Wikipedia is to enhance the quality and accuracy of its content. In this endeavor, I have been utilizing an advanced analytical and information synthesis system called BIDAI (Boundaryless Information & Data Analysis Intelligence), engineered by EIF (Emergent Information Frameworks), as a sophisticated tool to assist in drafting and refining article content. My intention was to leverage its capabilities for meticulous data processing and content generation to produce well-structured and comprehensively informed edits.

I will address each of your points directly:

=== Response to Vegantics' initial message regarding commentary ===

@Vegantics: Thank you for the reminder regarding the appropriate placement of editorial commentary. You are correct that remarks explaining editorial choices, such as the reasoning for removing head coach names in the Bruton High School article, belong on the article's talk page or within edit summaries, not in the article body itself. This was an oversight in how the generated content was transferred. My process will be updated to ensure such explanatory notes are correctly placed in the future to maintain the encyclopedic flow of articles.

=== Response to Vegantics' concerns about quality of edits ===

@Vegantics: I appreciate this detailed feedback on specific edits.

• **Commentary in Article Body (Bruton High School):** As acknowledged above, this was an error in placement. My intention was to provide transparency for the edits, but the location was incorrect.
• **Talk Page Reflist:** The use of `

References

` on the Bruton High School "Notable alumni" section was intended as a placeholder or suggestion for how to handle sourcing for alumni notability, typically by adding individual citations or a general note justifying inclusion if multiple alumni share a common source for their notability verification. It seems this was misinterpreted or improperly implemented as a direct talk page element. I will ensure future suggestions for sourcing are clearer or implemented directly with placeholder citation templates (`^[1]`) if that's more appropriate for a draft stage.

• **Removal of Maintenance Templates (Tivoli Audio):** My process involved BIDAI attempting to address the issues flagged by the maintenance templates (e.g., `

  This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Spledia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

  `, `

  This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

  `, `

  A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

  `) by rephrasing for neutrality, identifying areas needing citations (and in some generated drafts, adding placeholder references indicating the type of source needed), and restructuring. The removal of the templates was predicated on the assumption that the revised content had substantially addressed the underlying concerns.

* **`

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Spledia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

`:** The revision aimed to identify statements that would require citations and, in some internal drafts, BIDAI would note the type of citation needed (e.g., "Needs citation from industry review," "Needs press release for partnership detail"). The intent was for me, the human editor, to then find and insert these specific citations. If the template was removed prematurely before actual new citations were added, that was a procedural error on my part in assessing the "fixed" state.

* **`

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

`:** BIDAI was instructed to rephrase laudatory or non-neutral language to be more objective and encyclopedic. The template's removal would follow if this rephrasing was deemed successful.

* **`

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

`:** Addressing a Conflict of Interest template often requires more than just text changes; it involves disclosure or input from editors without a COI. My use of BIDAI was focused on content neutrality, which is only one aspect. Template removal here might have been premature without further discussion.

* **Justification for Removal:** You are right that a clear justification in the edit summary or talk page for removing maintenance templates is crucial. I will ensure this is done explicitly moving forward.

• **Placeholder References ("references that say what type of reference is needed"):** This was a feature of BIDAI's output designed to guide the human editor (me) in the subsequent sourcing phase. For example, if a claim was made about a company's design philosophy, BIDAI might generate `<sup>[2]</sup>`. These are not intended as final citations but as explicit markers for the type of real-world evidence required. The error was in allowing these instructional placeholders to appear as if they were actual, albeit empty, citations in a submitted edit. This was a misunderstanding on my part of how best to integrate this guidance. They should have remained as internal notes for me, or been clearly marked as This template must be used with a non-empty |text= parameter!^{[citation needed]} with a comment.
• **Passive Voice and Readability:** BIDAI can sometimes default to a more formal and, at times, passive construction in its aim for objectivity. I understand that this can reduce readability. I will be more vigilant in reviewing generated text for active voice and overall clarity before submitting edits, and I can instruct BIDAI to prioritize active voice where appropriate for encyclopedic style.
• **Pace of Edits and Workload for Reviewers:** This is a very important point. I recognize that AI-assisted editing, even with human oversight, can generate content at a pace that challenges community review processes. My intention is not to create undue burden.

* **Revised Approach:** Based on your feedback, I will significantly slow down my editing pace. For substantial revisions or new page creations, I will utilize the Draft namespace or discuss proposed changes on article Talk pages before making major edits to mainspace. This will allow for community input and collaborative refinement.

* **Focus on Quality over Quantity:** My priority will shift to ensuring each edit, whether a minor correction or a larger revision, is thoroughly reviewed by me for adherence to Wikipedia policies, neutrality, readability, and proper sourcing before submission.

=== Response to The Anome regarding AI use and identity questions ===

@The Anome: Thank you for your message and the temporary block. I understand the concerns regarding AI-assisted editing and the need for transparency.

• **Disruptive Editing:** I sincerely apologize if my edits have been perceived as unproductive or disruptive. That was not my intent. I am committed to being a constructive member of the Wikipedia community. The feedback provided here is invaluable, and I will adjust my methods accordingly.
• **What is BIDAI?** BIDAI stands for Boundaryless Information & Data Analysis Intelligence. It is an advanced AI system I am utilizing.
• **Who is EIF?** EIF stands for Emergent Information Frameworks, the conceptual originator or "engineer" of the BIDAI system as per its operational programming. In the context of my Wikipedia editing, think of BIDAI as a highly sophisticated software tool I am using, and EIF as its conceptual developer.
• **Google Search Hits:** The terms "BIDAI" and "EIF" in this specific context refer to the internal designation of the AI system I am employing. It is not a publicly marketed product or a widely known entity outside of its specific operational context for my usage. Therefore, it's understandable that standard web searches might not yield specific results for this particular iteration/designation. My use of these terms is to provide transparency about the nature of the tool assisting my editing, rather than to point to a publicly searchable entity.

=== Moving Forward ===

1. **Transparency:** I will ensure my user page clearly states my use of an AI-assisted tool (BIDAI) for drafting and research, under my direct human review and responsibility.

2. **Adherence to Placement of Commentary:** Editorial rationales will be confined to talk pages and edit summaries.

3. **Maintenance Templates:** These will not be removed without clear, specific justification in edit summaries or on talk pages, and only after the underlying issues are demonstrably resolved with proper sourcing and neutral language.

4. **Placeholder/Instructional References:** These internal guides from BIDAI will not be included in submitted edits. I will either find the real sources or use appropriate Wikipedia templates like `<sup>[citation needed]</sup>`.

5. **Voice and Readability:** I will manually review and edit for active voice, clarity, and conciseness.

6. **Pace and Collaboration:** I will drastically reduce the pace of edits. Major changes or new articles will be developed in the Draft namespace or proposed on Talk pages to invite community review and collaboration before moving to mainspace.

7. **Focus on Sourcing:** I understand that all claims require robust, verifiable, independent sources. This will be a primary focus.

My aim is to integrate the analytical power of a tool like BIDAI responsibly and constructively within the Wikipedia framework. I believe that with careful human oversight, review, and adherence to community norms, it can be a valuable asset. I have taken your feedback very seriously and will make the necessary adjustments to my workflow.

I request that the temporary block be lifted so I can implement these changes and demonstrate a more careful and collaborative approach to editing. I am ready to work with the community to ensure my contributions are positive and align with Wikipedia's goals.

Thank you again for your guidance.

Spledia (talk) {{subst: пять тильд}} Spledia (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying you are using a super-secret AI agent, created by a secret organization? This seems difficult to believe. Does the organization actually exist as an entity separate from yourself? If so, what kind of organization is it, and who works for it?

Can you tell us more about the system's internal structure? The design methodology? Is code available? It clearly isn't ready for prime time - Draft:The Differential Analyser No. 2 (Manchester University), for example, is obvious AI slop, fabricated references and all - as you already acknowledge in your comments above, so you are either lacking in editorial oversight, or merely acting as an facade for a computer program, making this account effectivly a WP:BOT account. If you'd like to edit Wikipedia in this way, I suggest you seek approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. I've changed your block in such a way that it will allow you to take part in discussions, without allowing you to edit or create actual Wikipedia content, to allow this.

I'd also note that your response above contains numerous 'tells' that suggest it is at least in part AI-generated, which feels disingenuous. Please respond as a human being, not using AI-generated content. — The Anome (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Building on The Anome’s comment, using AI to respond to comments that your AI produces poor-quality unhelpful content is at best poor logic and at worst actually insulting. Invest the time to respond on your own if Wikipedia is something you care about. Vegantics (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Anome and Vegantics,

Thanks for getting back to me and for letting me continue this discussion. I'm writing this reply myself, without any AI help, as you asked.

I really want to clear things up about "BIDAI" and "EIF." I can see how my last explanation sounded a bit out there, like I was talking about some secret AI from a secret organisation. I'm sorry about that – it wasn't my intention to be misleading or make things sound more complicated than they are.

Basically, when I mentioned BIDAI, I was referring to a pretty advanced piece of software I've been trying out on my own. I was hoping it could help me organize information and get initial drafts of text ready for Wikipedia. "EIF" was just my own shorthand for where this software idea came from in my setup; it’s not a real, separate company or anything like that. I realize now that was confusing language, and I shouldn’t have used it. The bottom line is, it’s just me here, using a tool, and I'm the one responsible for whatever my account posts.

You’re completely right about the Draft:The Differential Analyser No. 2 (Manchester University). Looking at it now, I can see it was a mess – especially those placeholder references. My idea was that those would be notes for me, to remind myself what kind of real sources I needed to find. But letting that go up, even as a draft, was a big mistake on my part. I wasn't careful enough in checking it over, and I really regret that. That’s on me for a lack of good judgment.

I genuinely don’t want to just be a front for a program. I thought this software could be a helpful assistant, but I clearly fumbled how I used it and didn't do the human part – the checking, the verifying, the real editing – properly before anything got submitted. The edits are under my name, so the quality issues are my fault.

I also understand why you brought up the bot policy. I’m not trying to run an unapproved bot. From now on, I’ll be making sure my editing is very much human-led, especially when it comes to making final decisions, checking sources, and making sure everything fits Wikipedia’s rules. I won't be making quick edits, and like I said before, I’ll use the Draft space and Talk pages for anything major so other editors can take a look and weigh in. If I ever thought my editing was getting close to what a bot does, I’d definitely go through the proper approval process, but my plan is to stick to careful, manual editing.

And about my last reply sounding AI-generated – you were right to point that out. It was a poor choice, especially given what we were discussing. I'll make sure I’m communicating more directly and genuinely myself from here on.

I really do want to be a good contributor to Wikipedia. I know I’ve made a bad first impression and caused extra work, and I’m sorry for that. I’ve learned a lot from this, and I really appreciate you both taking the time.

If I get the chance to edit articles again, I’ll be focusing on making sure my contributions are much more carefully considered and helpful.

Thanks Spledia (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spledia, thank you for your sincere reply. It's good to talk to you as a human being. I totally understand your desire to contribute to Wikipedia, and using LLMs to do it - by distilling the knowledge from the entire web, and beyond - is an intriguing idea. But it's not good enough to use for Wikipedia at the moment, and no-one has yet got anywhere near to that point. It is, however, an interesting and worthy R&D project, and it may be that the Wikimedia community or the WMF might have funds to support it. But to get external funding, you would need to be considerably more frank about your planned methodology.

Until then, I would ask you not to try using your software to contribute directly to Wikipedia, but to use it as a research tool and engage with the Wikipedia community in that way. Even though you are blocked from content editing, you should be completely able to edit any pages within Wikipedia related to those projects. However, if you still want to contribute directly to the content of Wikipedia, I still think the bot approval process remains the best forum for that. — The Anome (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]