Please remove LLM template

I am requesting the removal of the LLM template added in February 2026 [Lerato Shadi]. I wrote this content based on the sources cited in the 'External links' and 'References' sections, the text is original work. To address any concerns regarding the 'encyclopedic tone' or sourcing:

- The phrasing is my own and not a product of a generative model.

- All claims are supported by the provided citations. If there is a specific passage that appears “hallucinated” or lacks a clear inline citation, please point it out so I can fix it immediately.

- I have attempted to follow Wikipedia’s Manual of Style

I am committed to the quality of this article. Could you please specify which sections triggered the flag, or remove the template if no specific issues are found? Thanks.

dewilprj (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out,

I placed the tag on the page because of the extremely dense essay-like tone in the lead and "Artistic theme" sections. There are also phrases such as "Shadi’s work challenges Western notions of history by making visible what is routinely overlooked and by centering—not merely including—the marginalised body within narrative experience." which sound AI generated. SecretSpectre (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the quick reply, I hear you.

I’ve revised the lead and relevant sections, while keeping standard art-language where it’s supported by the relevant sources.

Could you please take another look? If anything still reads non-encyclopedic, point me to the specific lines and I’ll fix them; otherwise, I’d appreciate removal of the LLM template.

All my best. dewilprj (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article, I have removed the tag. SecretSpectre (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thanks for the guidance and for removing the template, all my best dewilprj (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this concern, SecretSpectre. I am requesting for removal of LLM template on airborne infection control in TB page. I want to clarify that the material I contributed was not blindly generated — all facts were carefully cross‑checked against reliable sources, and every citation was personally verified before inclusion. I can assure you that no hallucinated content or fictitious references were added. The statements are factually accurate, and the citations have been manually confirmed to correspond to the sources cited.

If you notice any specific point that seems problematic, I’d be glad to review it again with you to ensure the article maintains the highest standards of accuracy and reliability. Staracademic21 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the tag since the references look in order. It's getting merged anyway. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on Md. Zahidul Islam Dulu Article Edits

Hello SecretSpectre⁠, Thanks for your message and for reviewing my changes. I understand your concerns regarding the use of AI-generated content on Wikipedia. However, I would like to clarify that all the content I provided regarding Md. Zahidul Islam Dulu has been based on verifiable news sources such as Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS News) and Ajker Patrika. I did not use any AI-generated content or chatbots to write this article. All the content I provided, such as the results of the elections and the constituencies, are based on verifiable sources such as the media. I provided sources for all the content I provided. I did not use any content from Wikipedia as a source. If you find any content that you believe to be unverified or false, I will be happy to review it and make the necessary changes. I want to ensure that the content provided on this page meets the standards set by Wikipedia. Thanks again for your vigilance. RifatHasan25 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please note WP:MEATBOT "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity." You have written over two dozen articles about politicians in under two hours, all of which exhibit clear signs of AI writing. SecretSpectre (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		Great work tagging AI-generated content and participating in AfD. Keep it up! Rand Freeman (talk to me) 05:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! SecretSpectre (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

a note on vocab

I saw your edit on Jocelyne (Nie Yi)- cum in that usage is from Latin- see Wiktionary. Pretty uncommon phrase, though. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 12:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah thanks for clarifying that. Should I revert my edit or change the phrasing? (not that it matters much since it's probably getting speedy'd). SecretSpectre (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I would just leave it at this point and see if a deletion or draftification happens. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 23:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not tag for LLM without strong evidence

I have now twice removed you LLM tagging of Magnetic flux leakage prestressed steel. Neither Quilbot nor Scaling ai mark the page as AI, and there is zero evidence of hallucinations. Your argument that the term "stray field" is not used is incorrect, the article clearly talks about field leakage. You need definitive evidence to tag for LLM, not just an opinion. If you feel the page is deceptive LLM you can nominate it for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

A polite addendum. Based upon your edit history you are tagging a lot of pages for LLM, and several editors have argued that your tagging is incorrect. It is true that LLM is currently a serious issue, and experienced editors such as new page patrollers are spending too much time repairing bad pages. However, the evidence must be definitive, not just a minor suspicion, see {{AI-generated}} and WP:G15 for the type of evidence needed.

Constructive tagging and editing is invaluable, but at the same time reviewers have to be doubly careful. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to put up with me, I do apologise for this. I will be extra careful when dealing with AI in the future. My first edit summary was definitely inappropriate and I will avoid doing that. But I do want to point out the Template:AI-generated reads "may incorporate text from a large language model" and isn't a definitive "verdict" on whether an article is AI generated or not. I should have desisted in tagging, especially when I am not a subject expert. SecretSpectre (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, mine when I started were far worse! Ldm1954 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

UPE

Hello SecretSpectre. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:SecretSpectre. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=SecretSpectre|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rillet, Front App, Inc., Diapason, MrMed AfD manipulation.

~2026-24493-37 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)