User talk:MSK

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello MSK:

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.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

TFA

Thank you today for Curlew sandpiper, "about the curlew sandpiper, a small migratory shorebird found across Eurasia. This article is pretty short, but I'm pretty sure it covers all that needs be be covered. (I'm using American goldfinch and cactus wren as reference.) This is my first FAC"! - Enjoy your first TFA day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Good Article Gazette, Issue 17

Logo: Good Article Gazette - the official GAN newsletter

Issue 17, 21 July 2026

Ongoing discussions	News	Current statistics
Spot checking at GA Available depth of information on vs. around subject People not adding newly-promoted good articles to the list Suggestion for future drives Add the Good Topic/Featured Topic symbols next to the GA/FA symbols on articles	Good articles get a navbox Survey of new reviewers begins	Number of GAs: 44,471 (+133) Number of nominations: 921 (+15) GAs for reassessment: 26 (-8)

• Subscribe to the newsletter
• Review an article!
• Participate in review circles
• Acquire a mentor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Jeffrey P. Kahn submission rejection

Hello,

I see that you did not accept the article I submitted about Jeffrey P. Kahn for publication. I am eager to meet the standard for publication and feel that this article does meet the standard for Notability (academics), specified here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria

The standard for Academics says meeting any one of the conditions is notable. I feel Kahn has met several, with suitably verifiable sources, including:

Condtion 1. Person’s research has had a significant impact in their discipline. Two of his books (cited in the references), “Beyond Consent, Seeking Justice in Research” and “Contemporary Issues in Bioethics,” are foundational texts in the field of bioethics.

Condtion 3. Been elected to a highly selective prestigious scholarly society, such as the National Academy of Sciences. As the entry notes, Kahn is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine.

5. Person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution – Kahn holds 2 such positions at Johns Hopkins.

In addition, he has served as Chair of multiple National Academy of Sciences committees. I included reference to stories published by ABC News and NPR that quoted him when those committees published their findings. I think these meet the qualification for reputable outlets with editorial oversight.

In response to the comment that it reads like a resume, I was hesitant to include anything that was not linked to verifiable sources. Would it improve the article if, for example, I were to include quotes from ABC/NPR articles about the findings of the committees he chaired?

For example, if suitable I would write a sentence, linked to the ABC News article here, https://abcnews.com/Technology/panel-limit-medical-experiments-chimps/story?id=15163758 saying:

Kahn has previously chaired the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. In a report issued in December 2011, Kahn’s committee argued that researchers should halt medical experiments on chimpanzees, except for preventive vaccines for Hepatitis C and a very few other drug therapies that lack other options.

If I were to do that, along with a similar summary about the Ethics of Space Exploration committee that links to an NPR story about the report, would that address your concerns about it reading like a resume?

Thanks for any insight you are willing to lend. Jimbojonessmith (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI to write this response? msk 21:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I just wrote it myself Jimbojonessmith (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

To follow up, that's why I asked what kind of supporting material would make it not sound self-promotional but also address your concern about it reading too much like a CV or resume Jimbojonessmith (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• Education and Career should be merged
• Media and public outreach should be merged into Career, specific events can be detailed there, i.e. when he started the playing god podcast. The remaining mentions (interviews) should probably just be cut entirely.
• If possible, sources should have the name(s) of the authors.
• Section headers should be formatted as follows: == Level 2 header == (change the amount of equals signs on either side to change the level of the header) - section headers also shouldn't be underlined
• When did he serve as a member of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee? Why does this matter? (also applies for most of the Career section)

msk 21:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful feedback. I will edit the submission tomorrow Jimbojonessmith (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have responded to your suggestions by making the following changes.

Merged Education and Career

Merged Media in to Career and dropped interviews mentions

Added names of authors to sources (where available)

Formatted section headers

Applied context about significance of leadership on National Academies' committees

Thanks for your feedback. When you have a chance, please take a look and let me know if you have further recommendations or if it is appropriate to resubmit Jimbojonessmith (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jimbojonessmith I've added some citation needed tags. Kahn has emphasized sharing bioethics issues with the general public. Right now is unsourced and I suspect might be original research, i.e. new thought that hasn't been published before (preferably by a reliable institution). The published works section also needs to be properly formatted - see John Crook (ethologist) for an example msk 14:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've addressed your comments - removed that piece you identified as original research (thanks for helping me understand that term). And I added a citation for the PhD degree and hopefully properly formatted the published works section. Thanks again for your feedback, please let me know when you have time if you think it is ready for resubmission Jimbojonessmith (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me, feel free to resubmit. msk 21:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, time and insight on this. It really taught me a lot and I look forward to becoming a more regular and effective contributor as I enjoyed this process Jimbojonessmith (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Check your code

Not sure what code you were using, but your attempt to cleanup {{Infobox golf tournament}} was way wrong... Please see Category:Pages using infobox golf tournament with unknown parameters (0) which was empty this morning... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Good Article Gazette, Special issue

Logo: Good Article Gazette - the official GAN newsletter

Special issue - 28 July 2026

With several major discussions underway

Ongoing discussions		Current statistics
Likely invalid GAN review on Brewing Potential extra requirements for new reviewers Making WP:Good article reviewing guide a guideline instead of WP:Reviewing good articles Making the instructions more accessible Making the review closing tool easier to use How to handle inappropriate reviews	Handling a potentially biased review Model reviews Time for GAN QPQ (sort of) Proposed system for upgrading B-class articles to GA without formal review Time for an RfC on changes to GA Contribute at the August 2026 RfC page	Number of GAs: 44,523 (+52) Number of nominations: 954 (+33) GAs for reassessment: 26 (-8)

• Subscribe to the newsletter
• Review an article!
• Participate in review circles
• Acquire a mentor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Overview ai decline question

Hello MSK, on July 4th, you declined Draft:Overview AI regarding the sources. I thought I'd just ask as I want to make it perfect before I resubmit.

I assume that the funding reports, press releases, our website, the YC roundup, and the NVIDIA/Advantech ones don't count. The three that I'm unsure of:

• The Fabricator, "How AI and physical robotics are accelerating automation in

manufacturing"

• Plant Engineering, "Why factories need a digital backbone before embracing AI"
• Forbes, "Overview"

Are any of those relevant? What should I look for if I need fresh coverage instead? If there's an accepted article on a similar manufacturing company you'd call well sourced I'll use that as my standard. Thank you. Georgeofthemingle (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Before all of that, did you use any LLMs in the making of the article? Wikipedia does not accept LLM-generated articles, and if you did, you'll have to completely rewrite the article from scratch. msk 19:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't think any of the 3 sources you just mentioned meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I would suggest reading WP:NCORP (it's a bit dense so if you have any questions don't be afraid to ask); Wikipedia has very high requirements for articles about companies. msk 19:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I drafted the initial submission using ai for formatting and better wording. However that one got immediately declined so I spent a day writing everything myself and more concisely.

Thanks for sharing the NCORP doc. I read into the rules and to me it seems like none of our sources would make the cut but correct me if I am wrong. Just want to gauge if there is some foundation to work with or it has to be a fresh start. What I know for sure is that I will keep collecting more organic media coverage before trying again. Georgeofthemingle (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"Draft:Draft:Move/Rainbow (Cage the Elephant song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Draft:Move/Rainbow (Cage the Elephant song) to the article Neon Pill has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 30 § Draft:Draft:Move/Rainbow (Cage the Elephant song) until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Andrii Sahach decline

Hello MSK,

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Andrii Sahach. I've noticed the decline doesn't include a specific comment about which source(s) triggered the reliability concern — could you please point me to the particular reference(s) you have in mind? I'd like to address this precisely rather than guessing, since the draft cites a mix of established outlets (Ukrposhta, National Bank of Ukraine, Suspilne, DW Ukrainian) alongside some smaller regional ones (krivbass.city, informator.ua), and I want to fix the right thing. Thanks for your time and for reviewing the draft.

Best regards, --Andy Nakamura (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Andy Nakamura ) Please don't talk to me with AI. msk 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I’m using a translator for our correspondence. You rejected the draft without any explanation. I don’t want to have to guess what needs fixing. The article cites authoritative sources (Ukrposhta, National Bank of Ukraine, Suspilne, DW Ukrainian). I am waiting for a specific answer regarding the edits to the sources. Thanks Andy Nakamura (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the draft. I’ve just made the corrections. Thanks. Andy Nakamura (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Curlew sandpiper, about "a small migratory shorebird found across Eurasia"! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Therealbaddiegmail123 on Delta (emulator) (08:10, 1 August 2026)

How do l get delta to work in brookhaven Delta Screenshot DSLinux, a port of Linux to the Nintendo DS running on the Delta emulator

Original author Riley Testut Developer Riley Testut et al. Release September 28, 2019; 6 years ago (AltStore)[1] April 17, 2024; 2 years ago (App Store)[2][3] Written in Swift Operating system iOS iPadOS Platform iPhone iPad Predecessor GBA4iOS Type Video game console emulator License GNU Affero General Public License 3.0 Website deltaemulator.com Repository github.com/rileytestut/Delta --Therealbaddiegmail123 (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If this is directly relevant to editing a Wikipedia article then you can ask at the reference desk msk 14:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not buying it

Not sure what I was expecting from this exchange but it sure does read like someone putting in a prompt. Can't think of anything to say to them other than "I don't believe you" though... (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That being said, their talk page is full of this sort of back-and-forth, so it might really just be the way they talk... Primefac (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

With all the speedy deletions on their talk page a Not done for inadequate demonstration of understanding notability is probably valid as well. msk 14:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

True. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Dominic McLaughlin

Hello. You recently accepted Draft:Dominic McLaughlin at AfC. Thank you for your work in that arena; however, can you please explain why you believe this article's subject meets the applicable notability guidelines, specifically WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions (italics added for emphasis)? As noted in the banner at the top of the draft page that was inappropriately refactored into an AfC comment, editors reached consensus in a previous discussion at Talk:Harry Potter (TV series)/Archive 1 § Actor pages to keep this article in the draftspace until either (1) NACTOR is met, or (2) the Harry Potter TV series is released, at which point editors agreed that it was appropriate to invoke IAR given the notability of the series. Based on a cursory glance at the article's current sourcing condition, I do not believe either criterion has been met and would ask that you either clarify why you concluded otherwise or reconsider your decision. Courtesy pinging @Bobby Cohn, Hila Livne, and JacobTheRox. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not see that NACTOR has been met. The article should continue to be incubated in the draftspace until 25 December 2026, when the series is released. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 08:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"inappropriately refactored into an AfC comment". There is nothing wrong about a non-standard banner about the draft process being turned into a comment that is standard for the WP:WPAFC and the helper script.

Further, discussions on a related talk page do not determine whether and for how long something must stay in the draft space. For editors with the requisite permissions, AFC is optional.

If you disagree with the subject’s notability, the correct venue to discuss that is WP:AFD. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

And as a result, it was completely missed by the AfC reviewer. Discussions on a related talk page do not determine whether and for how long something must stay in the draft space Talk-page discussions document consensus, and here, the existing consensus was that the article's subject does not meet our notability guidelines. To change or challenge this consensus, new evidence or a new argument must be presented; this was not done here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus wasn't aware of the talk page conversation. I'm fine with draftification. msk 14:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, MSK. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus where is the didcusdion? He had 2 main roles Hila Livne (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter (TV series)/Archive 1 § Actor pages. McLaughlin has not had "two main roles"; according to the article, he has only had two minor roles in two barely notable productions. This does not constitute "significant roles in multiple notable [...] productions", which is determined based on WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. A quick search shows virtually no RS's that discuss McLaughlin outside of his role in Harry Potter, a strong indicator that he is only notable for that show at this time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Salad bar extremism

MSK Hello. You declined Draft:Salad bar extremism on the grounds that it appears to contain text generated by a large language model. I'd like to contest that, and I'd be grateful if you could point me to the specific passages that led you there. The citations check out. The Horgan and Shayler target article, Baele's reply, and Cassam's "Extremism without ideology" are all real 2026 pieces in Advances in Psychology, and each says what the draft attributes to it. So do Hemmila and Perliger in Crime & Delinquency, Gartenstein-Ross et al. in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, and the Program on Extremism's "The Age of Incoherence?" from June 2023. That matters because the guidance on machine-generated drafts turns on things like invented references, leftover chatbot phrasing, or placeholder text. None of those are present here. If I've missed one, I'd like to know where. As it stands I don't know what I'm being asked to change, since the decline doesn't identify anything specific. Could you either point to the passages in question or reconsider the decline? ~~~~ Psychwilly2 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Psychwilly2 Did you or did you not use a LLM to write the article? msk 20:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi MSK, sorry for the late reply. I also responded to this on the other page. Yes, I used Claude to help me draft this. I should not and apologize for that. Still learning.

How do I proceed from here? Can I leave the draft open and add the rewrite there? To be sure, I will start drafting it from scratch, not just rewrite the language. But it will take me some time. Maybe before I do so, do you think it merits its own page or is a subsection on the "Violent Extremism" page better suited? Psychwilly2 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably best to be merged with Violent extremism. msk 17:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from Malik1001 (13:01, 3 August 2026)

how i can make my page --Malik1001 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from Warrior1481 on Template:Latest stable software release/WPCleaner (11:52, 5 August 2026)

I don't know how to do code --Warrior1481 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Mind reviewing this?

Would welcome your thoughts on this draft author's comments about AI usage here , in regards to their draft here. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither draft nor comments read like AI to me; the consistent inconsistent capitalization and typos are pretty big anti-AI signs. msk 20:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing the title case headers made you think it was AI? msk 20:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That and the overuse of saying something is notable, or substantial, etc. If you're good with the language in it, then I'm good with it. I am still a bit confused about what he is saying about how he uses AI to incorporate the sources though, it might just be a comprehension issue on my part and not actually a problem. I do feel the subject is notable and the drafter obviously put a bunch of work in it, so I don't want to hold back the accept for assumed AI problems on my part that aren't there. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The notability-assertive language only came after the bio decline, so I'm assuming they just put in extra effort to show that the subject is notable. (Note that LLMs will do this as well) To incorporate sources, I'm guessing they mean using AI to wrangle the cite templates; those are one of the most useful use cases for AI while editing in source editor. msk 21:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for taking a look it. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft: 2X (Pennyslvania Company)

@MSK hi. You declined Draft:2X (Pennsylvania company) for not meeting notability in April. Since the initial declined draft, I have updated to include independent, secondary coverage from major reliable sources (such as the Washington Business Journal, The Edge Malaysia, and Channel Insider) to establish corporate notability. Would you mind taking a look to see if my recent changes improved the page? Bird4116 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You mention establishing corporate notability under WP:CORPDEPTH but none of the sources meet CORPDEPTH. Did you use AI to generate this edit summary? msk 01:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Advice for AI declines

Thank you for the much needed re-reviews of mine. Can you please give me a couple things I missed that will help me with AI-generated pages in the future? I would really like some pointers to make sure I don't make these mistakes again. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 00:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

For Fluid Truck, Special:PermanentLink/1350651914 is clearly AI generated, bunch of rules of three (e.g. The system also supported fleet tracking, usage monitoring, and maintenance coordination., Users could locate, unlock, and operate vehicles using smartphones.), wholly unnecessary verbosity (The company developed a platform designed to improve utilization of commercial vehicles by allowing owners to rent idle fleet assets through a centralized marketplace.), and disambiguation/redlinks in the See also section. Not present here but redlinked categories are also an AI sign. (Do note however redlinks/disambs/nonexistent categories alone might not mean its AI generated but rather an unattributed translation.)

msk 01:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I see where I messed up at Our Secrets (short film) and Miracle Flights. I'm just happy you provided this feedback because I was so mad at myself because I tried to be better than the December drive where I failed so many. I'll try to pay more attention to those signs and work on cleaning the articles up. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 02:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from PrincessNVIVI (16:46, 7 August 2026)

Hi! im vivi. Is there any shortcut to easily remove an edit that i have already made? --PrincessNVIVI (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

There should be an undo button in the page history, next to the thank icon. msk 17:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from Dekoder-py (22:10, 10 August 2026)

Hi there! Nice to meet you. I was just wondering where the best place to find articles that need editing? --Dekoder-py (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi MSK,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi MSK,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User talk:Monkeysmashingkeyboards and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hwayoung Shon article — addressed AI-generated content concerns

Hi MSK, thank you for flagging the article. I've gone through it and made the following changes to address concerns about unsourced or AI-generated content:

• Added a citation for the "Early life and education" section (previously unsourced).
• Corrected a citation that was misattributed — a sentence about a collaboration with Guo Gan was previously supported by a source that actually covers a different collaboration (Fusion Soul with Karlton Hester); these are now separated and each properly cited.
• Corrected the name and venue of a 2025 Stanford Live performance to match the actual event title and add a citation.
• Removed an unsourced "Selected compositions" list that duplicated content already covered (with citations) in the prose above, and consolidated the Awards section to include only verifiable competitions, correcting one competition's name and rank in the process.
• Added several additional independent sources (news articles, event listings) supporting details in the Performance and Compositions sections.

I believe the article is now fully sourced and I've tried to be conservative — removing anything I couldn't verify rather than leaving it in. Could you take another look and let me know if there's anything else that needs attention, or if the tag can be removed? Thank you for your time reviewing new articles. Dahlias128 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)