Jump to content

User talk:Chalk giant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi Chalk giant! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! RolandR (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roland, thanks for the tips! I've been contributing on and off for quite a while now but more off than on :-), so the tutorials will be helpful. I love Wikipedia. Chalk giant (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Chalk giant! Your additions to World Health Organization have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. C F A 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia because Wikipedia can be reused commercially. C F A 21:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this information. I thought the references to the sources were enough but I understand better now what is required. My bad, rookie mistake. Will try and do better next time! Thanks again for explaining. Chalk giant (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]

Please do not ever change direct quotes, even to "improve" their wording, as you did at Futures studies. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jessica, I absolutely agree with you that direct quotes should never be 'improved'. Can you show me what I did exactly? I can't find what you're referring to. Perhaps it wasn't clear that it was a direct quote? Chalk giant (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rusalkii (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, Chalk giant. We welcome your contributions. Based on the above discussion, it may seem like you might have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. So just wanted to ask if you have an undisclosed connection? Thank you. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Involve (think tank) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Involve (think tank), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involve (think tank) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been doing my best to learn more, I admit to being quite out of my depth regarding Wikipedia technical conventions, language, etc. so have recused myself from the recent content discussion on the Involve (think-tank) entry. The proposal to delete the Involve entry entirely, however, is a bridge too far, and one I vehemently disagree with. (I strongly suspect that those editors proposing deletion are connected to Involve in some way (or even paid by them?) and simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet.) Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship IMHO.
Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve has apparently resulted in a petition to the UK government petitions service to amend the UK Charities Act so as to close the revolving door between industry lobbyists and charities by introducing a 5-year ban on them taking up trustee posts after leaving their industry position: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-wa-foulkes_charitygovernance-corruption-bigtobacco-activity-7306164788068306945-dKWb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAASIBdEB7nQE4xbTkWoM0hmYURwNkITtMeU
This petition has acquired the requisite number of preliminary signatures and is now at the checking stage. Once it goes public on the government website people will quite rightly want to inform themselves about the background to it and Wikipedia will have done them a great disservice by deleting the Involve entry. Chalk giant (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Involve (think tank)

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Talk:Involve (think tank), a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Syn73 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may leave your comment on the WP:TEAHOUSE or the closer's admin talk page. Cheers, Syn73 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello Chalk giant! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Speedy deletion of my Talk page for deleted Involve (think-tank) page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Collective intelligence has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know the details of this as of course I don't wish to violate copyright. Chalk giant (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the book The Wisdom of Crowds that you added is a match for content found here (on the back cover of the book). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Diannaa, I did find those when I was looking through to try and find out what the problem was and I deleted all those links! (At least, I think I found them all.) Chalk giant (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM

[edit]

Hello there. Have you been using an LLM for your edits here on Wikipedia recently? If so, could you WP:LLMDISCLOSE:

  • What tool(s) you are using, and which versions.
  • What prompts, features, etc that you are using.
  • What review, if any, you are doing of the LLM generated output text.

Thank you, --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for this, can you please let me know more details about what prompted your query? Am happy to address any concerns but need a bit more info. I have a decades-long career in professional writing behind me btw (including several years as technical author at a software company) so I hope my 'perfect grammar' hasn't fooled you into thinking all my content is LLM-produced :-). I did find an iffy reference recently which I remember thinking might be hallucinated but managed to correct/replace it (it's a while back now though so I can't remember exactly which one it was). I didn't know about WP:LLMDISCLOSE but will certainly conform to this in my editing summaries in future if necessary!
Your query inspired me to look into the question of LLMs and Wikipedia generally and I'm shocked to find people are creating slop, articles generated by LLMs without editing. As someone who used to teach writing at university level, I do think they can be used as productivity tools but only by expert writers who are creating content in areas of their own expertise, and according to strict guidelines. We could also consider trying to get ahead of the curve and create our own prompts to minimise slop that could be used with LLMs that we consider of sufficient quality. It's a delicate balance, however, and I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I will look at the Wikipedia community that is trying to get a grip on this and get involved if I have time. Chalk giant (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a decades-long career in professional writing behind me btw

Sounds like you have the skills to be a great Wikipedia editor. I would love it if you would use those skills to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm not a great writer myself, it's not something that comes easily to me. Good and dedicated writers are what has made Wikipedia into what it is today, and I think that is worth protecting.

can you please let me know more details about what prompted your query?

This was generated by ChatGPT: Diff/1326727619. There's more, but slogging through the massive amounts of texts generated by LLMs takes a lot more effort than creating them.

It's a delicate balance

No, it's easy. Don't paste text that was generated by an LLM into Wikipedia. Problem solved.

and I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Pasting LLM output into Wikipedia is throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind remark, am doing my best to contribute :-).
I looked at the ChatGPT link you gave me that caused the flag - this is a normal edit, a new section on Conferences (on collective intelligence), created by me with the sweat of my brow, with hard research, and which I am actually quite proud of! It's not LLM generated.
If ChatGPT is flagging normal edits like this as being LLM-generated then it will be causing huge amounts of unnecessary work for editors like yourself. Please let whoever created this flagging algorithm that it needs debugging.
Take care, all best. Chalk giant (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: please let whoever created this flagging algorithm _know_ that it needs debugging. Chalk giant (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. You said the flag/link you gave was just one example, and that there were lots of other flags that (supposedly) indicated LLM-generated content. Seeing as the link/flag you gave me most definitely was not LLM generated, and was triggered erroneously by normal edits, can we assume that all the other flags were mistaken also? Can we get rid of the note at the head of the Collective intelligence article?
I'd be happy to look at a few other of the flags before we do so, just to make sure.
It may well be that my method of working has caused it. I've decided to contribute to Wikipedia mainly by looking for articles that are in my areas of interest and expertise and take them under my belt, one by one, to thoroughly update them, rather than dipping in and out of many articles. Chalk giant (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. I've been trying to figure out why my new section would be flagged as LLM-generated and I think it might be because when I'm working on a new section, I work on the whole thing in Google Docs and only when I've finished researching and writing and revising it do I copy and paste the whole thing into the article in the appropriate place. I don't do it piecemeal. If our LLM content-detecting bots are only searching for big chunks of text that have been pasted in, then they won't be able to differentiate between material produced by someone like me and that produced by someone who is uncritically copying and pasting unedited/unchecked content from LLMs. Chalk giant (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Collective intelligence

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Collective intelligence, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Qwerfijkl, I think/hope I've fixed everything. Chalk giant (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Collective intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consensus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chalk giant (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Collective intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2026

[edit]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Your Party (UK) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. — Czello (music) 07:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will seek dispute resolution. Chalk giant (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chalk_giant&oldid=1335105319"